Reporter’s “Privilege” Not Mightier than Sword?

Letter to Philippians: Journalist Catherine Herridge recently learned (again) her “right” to keep a source confidential can be more “light” than “might” as US Sup Ct left in place a trial judge’s contempt order requiring her to pay $800 per day until she coughs up her leaker …

The one-time Fox News reporter got the potentially heavy fine imposed for contempt while covering a 2018 Privacy Act lawsuit against the US filed by a Chinese American scientist. As reported by CNN, the suit alleges a “Virginia training firm patronized by Pentagon officials had ties to the Chinese military.” The scientist’s lawyers insisted US officials illegally leaked her private communications to Herridge then at Fox as part of a related FBI probe. During discovery, the plaintiff’s legal team asked the court to compel Herridge to name the leaker under the Privacy Act, but the Fox reporter invoked the First Amendment reporter’s limited privilege in refusing to comply. It turned out to be a bad decision, at least, for now, because the Supremes refused to hear her emergency appeal (from her unsuccessful appeal to the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit). While the High Court did not explain its decision, the Privacy Act was designed to trump a reporter’s usual 1^stAmendment privilege when the government acts badly, e.g., by invading a citizen’s privacy via leaks. In Branzburg v Hayes, the Supremes had made it clear that the 1^st Amendment does NOT give reporters a blanket privilege as once assumed and especially when a constitutional statute, like the Privacy Act, says so.

While Herridge’s emergency petition was rejected, her lawyers could again petition the Court to reconsider while continuing to refuse to reveal her source. But that would also mean the daily contempt fines would keep mounting & could even be increased by the trial judge, who could even wind up jailing her.

Davd Soul