Supreme Court to Weigh Reporter’s Privilege in Controversial China Military Reporting Case

Key points

• Catherine Herridge, a former Fox News investigative reporter, is asking the Supreme Court to protect her confidential sources after being held in contempt for refusing to identify them.
• The dispute originated from Herridge’s 2017 reporting on Yanping Chen, who operated a university in Arlington, Virginia, that enrolled U.S. military personnel using Defense Department tuition assistance.
• Herridge’s reporting alleged that Chen had previously served as a colonel in China’s People's Liberation Army and that the university collected sensitive data on American service members, potentially accessible from China.
• Following the reporting, the Department of War terminated military tuition assistance funding for Chen’s university, which had been receiving approximately $200,000 monthly in taxpayer-funded support.
• Yanping Chen, who was investigated but never charged with a crime, sued the federal government, claiming that officials improperly disclosed her private records to Herridge in violation of the Privacy Act.
• Chen’s lawsuit seeks to compel Herridge to identify her sources to establish the chain of disclosure for her Privacy Act claims.

Background

This case follows earlier legal disputes involving media and government transparency, such as the DOJ filing misconduct complaints against Minnesota judges for speaking to the media about ongoing cases. It also aligns with broader national security concerns regarding foreign influence in U.S. institutions, as seen in previous investigations into entities with potential ties to foreign military or intelligence services. The archive does not contain direct background on Herridge’s 2017 reporting, but it reflects ongoing tensions between press freedom and government secrecy in national security contexts.

Why it matters

The outcome of this case could significantly reshape the legal protections afforded to journalists in the United States under the First Amendment. If the Supreme Court upholds the lower court’s narrow test, it could allow plaintiffs to compel reporters to reveal confidential sources even if the underlying lawsuit is ultimately weak or fails to recover damages. This could chill investigative journalism, particularly on sensitive government matters, by discouraging sources from sharing information with reporters. Conversely, a ruling in Herridge’s favor could strengthen the reporter’s privilege, ensuring that journalists can protect their sources without facing severe legal consequences. The case also highlights the need for a comprehensive legal standard for reporter’s privilege, which has been inconsistently applied across federal appeals courts for decades.

What to watch

The Supreme Court will review the case to determine whether the lower courts applied the correct legal standard for evaluating a journalist’s claim of privilege in civil litigation. If the Court agrees with Herridge’s petition, it may issue a ruling that broadens the scope of reporter’s privilege, requiring courts to consider the strength of the underlying lawsuit and the consequences of compelling disclosure. If the Court upholds the D.C. Circuit’s decision, it could set a precedent that allows plaintiffs to compel reporters to reveal sources in civil cases, even if the lawsuit is ultimately unsuccessful. The decision could also prompt Congress to consider legislation to clarify and strengthen the legal protections for journalists in the United States.