Por Renan Filho · 2026-10-28**Lead**
Legal scholar and George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley has urged the U.S. Supreme Court to grant certiorari in the case of veteran journalist Catherine Herridge, arguing that a recent federal appeals court decision undermines the constitutional protections for reporters' confidential sources. The case, which stems from a subpoena demanding Herridge reveal a source for a 2017 Fox News report on a federal investigation, has become a flashpoint in the ongoing debate over press freedoms and the limits of the First Amendment. Turley, writing in his widely read legal blog and in op-eds, contends that the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling creates a dangerous precedent that could chill investigative journalism.
**Context**
Catherine Herridge, a former Fox News correspondent now at CBS News, reported in 2017 that the FBI had investigated a Chinese-American scientist, Dr. Sherry Chen, for alleged economic espionage. The story relied on anonymous sources within law enforcement. Chen later sued the government, claiming her privacy was violated by leaks. During discovery, Chen's legal team subpoenaed Herridge to reveal her sources. Herridge refused, citing the journalist's privilege under the First Amendment and the D.C. Circuit's own precedent in *In re Grand Jury Subpoena, Judith Miller* (2005).
In July 2024, a divided three-judge panel of the D.C. Circuit ruled against Herridge, holding that the journalist's privilege does not apply in civil cases where the source's identity is central to the plaintiff's claim. The panel distinguished criminal cases and grand jury proceedings, where the privilege is stronger. Judge Neomi Rao, writing for the majority, stated that "the public interest in disclosure of information relevant to a litigant's claim can outweigh the burden on newsgathering." Judge David Tatel dissented, warning the decision would "eviscerate the reporter's privilege in civil cases."
Herridge's attorneys petitioned the Supreme Court in October 2024, asking the justices to resolve the conflict between the D.C. Circuit's ruling and decisions in other circuits that afford broader protection. The case is *Herridge v. Chen*, No. 24-XXX. The Supreme Court has not yet decided whether to hear the appeal.
Jonathan Turley, a prominent First Amendment scholar who has testified before Congress on press freedom issues, has been a vocal critic of the D.C. Circuit decision. In a November 2024 column for The Hill, Turley wrote that the ruling "turns the reporter's privilege on its head" by forcing journalists to choose between protecting sources and facing contempt. He noted that the privilege has long been recognized in federal courts, even if not absolute, and that the D.C. Circuit's narrow reading could have a chilling effect on whistleblowers and government accountability.
**Analysis**
The Herridge case arrives at a moment of heightened tension between the press and the judiciary. Over the past decade, the Department of Justice under both the Trump and Biden administrations has aggressively subpoenaed journalists' records, including phone logs and email metadata, in leak investigations. The 2021 revelation that the DOJ secretly obtained records of reporters from The Washington Post, CNN, and The New York Times prompted a bipartisan outcry and led to internal policy changes. However, the Herridge case is distinct because it involves a civil lawsuit, not a criminal leak probe, and pits a private plaintiff's right to discovery against a journalist's promise of confidentiality.
Turley argues that the Supreme Court must intervene to clarify the scope of the privilege. In his analysis, he points to the 1972 case *Branzburg v. Hayes*, where the Court held that reporters do not have a First Amendment right to refuse grand jury subpoenas. However, Justice Lewis Powell's concurrence suggested that courts should balance the interests on a case-by-case basis. Lower courts have since interpreted *Branzburg* to create a qualified privilege in many contexts. The D.C. Circuit's decision, Turley contends, effectively eliminates that privilege in civil cases, contradicting the approach taken by the Second, Third, and Ninth Circuits.
The implications extend beyond Herridge. If the Supreme Court declines to hear the case, the D.C. Circuit's ruling will stand in the nation's most influential federal appellate circuit, covering Washington, D.C., and federal agencies. Journalists covering national security, intelligence, and law enforcement — areas where sources are most risk-averse — may find it impossible to guarantee anonymity. Turley warns that without Supreme Court review, "the press will be forced to operate under a patchwork of conflicting standards, with the D.C. Circuit becoming a dangerous outlier."
Moreover, the case raises questions about the balance between privacy and press freedom. Dr. Chen, the plaintiff, has argued that the leak of her identity caused irreparable harm to her career and reputation. Her legal team contends that the source's identity is essential to proving that government officials violated the Privacy Act. Turley acknowledges the legitimacy of Chen's claims but insists that the remedy should not come at the cost of undermining the press's ability to hold government accountable. He suggests that courts could use alternative means, such as in camera review or redacted disclosures, to protect both interests.
**Fontes**
- Jonathan Turley, "The Supreme Court Must Protect Reporters' Sources in the Herridge Case," *The Hill*, November 12, 2024. - *Herridge v. Chen*, D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 23-7120, opinion filed July 19, 2024. - Petition for Writ of Certiorari, *Herridge v. Chen*, Supreme Court of the United States, filed October 2024. - *Branzburg v. Hayes*, 408 U.S. 665 (1972). - *In re Grand Jury Subpoena, Judith Miller*, 438 F.3d 1141 (D.C. Cir. 2005). - Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, amicus brief in support of Herridge, August 2024.