Mr. Cooper said Mr. Herridge violated an Aug. 1 order requiring Mr. Herridge to disclose how he learned of the federal investigation into Mr. Chen, who ran a graduate program in Virginia. handed down the verdict. Herridge, who was recently fired from CBS News, wrote the article in question while working at Fox News in 2017.
As a Fox News report revealed, Chen was not charged after an investigation into whether he lied about his military service and whether the school's student database could be accessed from China. But after those stories brought the investigation to light, Mr. Chen filed a federal complaint alleging that Mr. Herridge provided leaked materials that violated his privacy, including photos and images of internal government documents.
Ms. Herridge appeared at a deposition in late September, but refused to reveal how she obtained the information, citing her First Amendment rights, telling Ms. Chen's lawyer, “Now you have to follow orders.'' It must be done,” he said.
“The court did not reach this result lightly,” the judge wrote. “We recognize the paramount importance of freedom of the press in our society and the critical role that confidential sources play in the work of investigative journalists like Herridge. It also has a unique role to protect.”
Herridge and her attorney, Patrick Philbin, did not respond to messages seeking comment.
“Insulting journalists for protecting confidential sources has a deeply chilling effect on journalism,” Fox News said in a statement. “Fox News Media remains committed to protecting the rights of a free press and free speech and believes this decision should be appealed.”
First Amendment advocates opposed the Cooper decision that forced Herridge to disclose his sources, saying journalists can only perform a public service role if they can protect the identities of confidential sources. he claimed.
“The court's order holding journalist Catherine Herridge in contempt for refusing to name a confidential source is disappointing and should upset anyone who values press freedom.” said Caitlin Vogus, deputy director of advocacy at the Press Freedom Foundation. “For courts to force journalists to burn their sources would completely undermine the public's right to know.”
Still, Gabe Lotman of the Reporters Committee for a Freedom of the Press said it was a “relief” that Herridge could now appeal without having to immediately pay the daily fine.
“Today's ruling is an important ruling that ensures that government officials are held accountable for their outrageous abuse of power,” Andrew C. Phillips, an attorney representing Mr. Chen, said in a statement.
Herridge had asked for a fine of just $1 per day, but the judge decided that wasn't enough. “Such a trivial sanction would not serve the fundamental purpose of civil contempt, which is to ensure compliance with court orders,” the judge wrote. “This will allow Mr. Herridge to continue to violate the court's instructions and pay pittances in perpetuity, while effectively violating Mr. Chen's right to pursue his Privacy Act claims.”
However, the judge did not prevent Ms. Chen from receiving funds “from other persons or entities” to pay the fine, as she had requested.
In 2005, five national journalists were arrested on contempt charges and ordered to pay $500 a day until they revealed the sources of their articles about the government investigation into nuclear scientist Wen Ho Lee. The lawsuit was ultimately settled for $750,000.
A USA Today reporter was arrested on contempt charges in 2008 and fined up to $5,000 a day for failing to cite the source of an article that identified a former Army scientist as a person of interest in the 2001 anthrax attacks. was fined. That incident was also resolved.
First Amendment advocates see Herridge's case as a reason why Congress should approve the Federal Shield Act, which protects reporters from having to disclose their sources. In his ruling, the justices nod to the possibility of a “new federal common law reporting privilege” that is broader than the statute provides.
This article has been updated with comment from Andrew C. Phillips, attorney representing Yanping Chen.
