Former Fox News investigative reporter Catherine Herridge has taken her fight to protect confidential sources to the Supreme Court, challenging a contempt order carrying an $800 daily penalty. The dispute grew from her 2017 reporting on Yanping Chen, a Chinese American businesswoman whose background and university drew federal scrutiny.

A federal court ordered Herridge to identify the sources who helped expose Chen’s alleged ties to China’s military. When Herridge refused, the court held her in civil contempt and ordered her to pay $800 per day.

The case could dramatically reshape the First Amendment protections available to journalists working in the United States. It also places a punishing financial burden on a reporter who argues that revealing her sources would damage journalists’ ability to obtain sensitive information.

Herridge’s 2017 investigation examined Chen’s operation of the University of Management and Technology in Arlington, Virginia. The university enrolled American military personnel who used War Department tuition assistance.

Warning: Account balances and purchasing power no longer tell the same story. Know in 2 minutes if your retirement is working for you.

The reporting raised questions about Chen’s alleged previous service as a colonel in China’s People’s Liberation Army. It included photographs that appeared to show Chen wearing a Chinese military uniform and examined allegations that she concealed her earlier military service while applying for United States immigration benefits.

Catherine Herridge is taking her fight to protect confidential sources to the Supreme Court — and the outcome could reshape press protections for every journalist in America.

The former Fox News investigative reporter was held in contempt and hit with $800-a-day fines after refusing to reveal who helped her expose a Chinese American businesswoman's alleged ties to the People's Liberation Army. Full story here https://t.co/RMM7Ij3cyF — Fox News Politics (@foxnewspolitics) October 26, 2026

Herridge’s investigation also raised concerns about information the university collected from American service members, including details about military training and professional backgrounds. A whistleblower interviewed during the investigation alleged that information on the school’s computers could be accessed remotely from China.

Federal authorities investigated Chen over possible immigration violations and counterintelligence concerns. Prosecutors in the Eastern District of Virginia ultimately declined to charge her with a crime.

Following Herridge’s reporting, the Pentagon completed a national security review of Chen’s university and terminated its eligibility for military tuition assistance funding, according to Herridge’s filing. The university had been receiving approximately $200,000 each month in taxpayer funded tuition assistance.

FREE Gun Law Map: Laws Don't Pause During Social Unrest

Chen later sued the federal government, alleging that officials improperly disclosed her private records to Herridge in violation of the Privacy Act. She argues that identifying the officials responsible for those alleged disclosures is necessary for her to establish her claims.

Herridge has refused to name her sources, maintaining that forced disclosure would undermine journalists seeking sensitive information from government officials and whistleblowers. After a federal judge ordered her to reveal the sources, the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit upheld that order.

That ruling sent the fight to the Supreme Court, where Herridge’s attorneys are asking the justices to reconsider the standard used to compel journalists to identify confidential sources in civil litigation. Her petition points to a longstanding disagreement among federal appeals courts over the scope of the reporter’s privilege.

The Supreme Court has not comprehensively addressed the issue in more than five decades. Herridge’s legal team argues that the lower courts failed to give adequate consideration to the broader circumstances surrounding Chen’s lawsuit.

Those circumstances, according to the filing, include the Pentagon’s national security findings and the question of whether Chen can ultimately prevail against the federal government. Herridge’s attorneys argue that judges should examine more than whether a plaintiff needs the information and has exhausted other ways to obtain it.

The D.C. Circuit used a narrower test that focused primarily on Chen’s need for the information and her efforts to obtain it through alternative means, according to the filing. Herridge’s lawyers contend that courts should also weigh the strength of the underlying lawsuit and the consequences of exposing confidential sources, particularly when national security reporting is involved.

Under the standard Herridge is challenging, her petition argues, a plaintiff could obtain a journalist’s confidential sources even when other flaws might prevent the plaintiff from ultimately recovering damages. That possibility gives the Supreme Court a consequential press freedom dispute with implications extending beyond Herridge’s reporting.

Fox News Media has continued supporting Herridge’s legal fight and covering her legal fees, despite her departure from the network in 2019. For Herridge, the immediate stakes remain stark: protect the sources behind a national security investigation or face a court-imposed penalty of $800 every day.

The opinions expressed by contributors and/or content partners are their own and do not necessarily reflect the views of BoredTrashPanda.com. Contact us for guidelines on submitting your own commentary.