Supreme Court Rejects Herridge Bid To Halt Contempt Fines

The Supreme Court on Monday declined Catherine Herridge’s attempt to block a lower court’s imposition of $800 per day fines. These fines were levied after she refused to disclose the source of her reporting when she was employed by Fox News. U.S. District Judge Christopher Cooper had initially found Herridge in civil contempt in November 2023. This decision stemmed from her refusal to reveal the identity of a source for stories published in 2017 concerning the FBI’s investigation into the Trump campaign.

Herridge had sought an emergency intervention from the Supreme Court to halt the accumulating fines while her broader appeal against the contempt order proceeds. She argued that the fines were causing irreparable harm and that the lower court had overstepped its authority by holding her in contempt. The fines, which began accruing in December 2023, have already amounted to a significant sum. Herridge’s legal team contended that forcing her to reveal her source would violate journalistic principles and potentially endanger the source.

The case originates from a defamation lawsuit filed by Xuecai Wang, a Chinese businessman, against Herridge and Fox News. Wang alleged that the 2017 reports falsely accused him of being an agent of the Chinese government. A federal appeals court upheld Judge Cooper’s contempt finding in February 2024, stating that Herridge had not demonstrated a sufficient legal basis to avoid disclosing her source, particularly given the nature of the defamation claims. The Supreme Court’s denial means the fines will continue to accrue until Herridge complies with the court order or the contempt finding is overturned on appeal.

This ruling underscores the ongoing tension between journalistic privilege and the legal requirements to disclose sources in certain civil proceedings. Herridge’s legal battle highlights the risks journalists face when protecting confidential sources, especially in high-stakes litigation. The specific details of the source and the information provided remain central to the defamation case, and Herridge’s continued refusal to disclose has placed her in a precarious financial and legal position.