@RobertBarnes @VivaFrei and all. ⚖️ SCOTUS is being asked “to comprehensively address[ed] in more than five decades” protections of investigative reporters’ and journalists’ confidential sources, but, will they? “The outcome of the case could dramatically reshape the legal protections afforded to journalists working in the U.S. under the First Amendment.”
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/800-a-day-penalty-threatens-bleed-investigative-reporter-dry-explosive-legal-fight-escalates
Did you know, “Fox News Media has continued to support Herridge's legal fight, including covering her legal fees, despite her departure from the network in 2019.”?
Catherine Herridge’s confidential government sources exposed Chen’s ties to China’s military. Chen lost “military tuition assistance funding to [her] Chen's university following a national security review,…” and has brought civil litigation. She demands the confidential government sources be identified.
Herridge’s “legal team argues that the lower courts FAILED to adequately weigh the broader circumstances of Chen's lawsuit, including the Pentagon's national security findings and whether Chen can ultimately prevail in her claims against the government.”
“The filing argues that the D.C. Circuit applied a narrow test focused primarily on whether Chen needed the information to pursue her lawsuit and whether she had exhausted alternative means of obtaining it.”
Herridge “contend[s] that courts should also consider the strength of the underlying lawsuit and the consequences of compelling disclosure, particularly when confidential national security sources may be involved.”

“Former Fox News investigative reporter Catherine Herridge is asking the Supreme Court to protect her confidential sources after a federal court ordered her to identify who helped expose a woman's alleged ties to China's military.
The outcome of the case could dramatically reshape the legal protections afforded to journalists working in the U.S. under the First Amendment.
Herridge was held in contempt and ordered to pay $800 per day for refusing to reveal sources behind her 2017 reporting on Yanping Chen, a Chinese American businesswoman who operated a university attended by U.S. military personnel. Her reporting raised questions about Chen's alleged past as a colonel for the People's Liberation Army (PLA) of China and the potential exposure of sensitive information about American service members.

The Department of War subsequently cut off military tuition assistance funding to Chen's university following a national security review, according to a filing by Herridge's legal team. The school had been receiving approximately $200,000 a month in taxpayer-funded tuition assistance.

Now Chen, who was investigated by federal authorities but never charged with a crime, is pursuing a lawsuit against the federal government, alleging that officials improperly disclosed her private records to Herridge in violation of the Privacy Act. She has sought to compel Herridge to identify her sources as part of that litigation.

The dispute has reached the Supreme Court, where Herridge's attorneys are asking the justices to reconsider the legal standard used to force journalists to disclose confidential sources in civil cases.

Her legal team argues that the lower courts failed to adequately weigh the broader circumstances of Chen's lawsuit, including the Pentagon's national security findings and whether Chen can ultimately prevail in her claims against the government.

The case also exposes a longstanding disagreement among federal appeals courts over the scope of the reporter's privilege, an issue the Supreme Court has not comprehensively addressed in more than five decades.

Herridge's original investigation, published while she was working at Fox News in 2017, examined Chen's background and her operation of the University of Management and Technology in Arlington, Virginia, which enrolled U.S. military personnel using Defense Department tuition assistance.

The reporting included photographs appearing to show Chen in a Chinese military uniform and examined allegations that she had concealed her previous military service when applying for U.S. immigration benefits.

It also raised concerns about the university's collection of information on American service members, including details about their military training and professional backgrounds. A whistleblower interviewed for the investigation alleged that information stored on the school's computers could be accessed remotely from China.

Federal authorities had previously investigated Chen over potential immigration violations and counterintelligence concerns, but prosecutors in the Eastern District of Virginia declined to bring charges.

Following Herridge's reporting, the Pentagon completed a review of Chen's university and terminated its eligibility for military tuition assistance funding, according to her filing.

Chen subsequently filed suit against the federal government, alleging that confidential information from government records had been improperly disclosed to Herridge. She contends that identifying the officials responsible for the alleged disclosures is necessary to establish her Privacy Act claims.

Herridge refused to identify her sources, arguing that compelling disclosure would undermine the ability of journalists to obtain sensitive information from government officials and whistleblowers.

A federal judge ultimately ordered Herridge to disclose the sources and held her in civil contempt when she refused. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit upheld the order, prompting her appeal to the Supreme Court.

Fox News Media has continued to support Herridge's legal fight, including covering her legal fees, despite her departure from the network in 2019.

At the center of Herridge's petition is a disagreement among federal appeals courts over how judges should evaluate a journalist's claim of privilege when confidential sources are sought in civil litigation.

The filing argues that the D.C. Circuit applied a narrow test focused primarily on whether Chen needed the information to pursue her lawsuit and whether she had exhausted alternative means of obtaining it.

They contend that courts should also consider the strength of the underlying lawsuit and the consequences of compelling disclosure, particularly when confidential national security sources may be involved.

The distinction could prove significant for journalists reporting on sensitive government matters. Under the standard challenged by Herridge, a plaintiff could obtain a reporter's confidential sources even if other deficiencies in the lawsuit would ultimately prevent the plaintiff from recovering damages, according to the petition.”