A federal appellate process is moving forward in Yanping Chen v. FBI, No. 24-5050, a high-profile fight at the intersection of investigative journalism and compelled disclosure. The case reached the U.S. Court of Appeals after a notice of appeal was filed in March 2024, seeking review of a decision issued by the U.S. District Court in the underlying matter, docketed as 1:18-cv-03074-CRC. According to the appellate docket maintained by CourtListener, the appeal was assigned USCA Case Number 24-5050 on March 13, 2024.
The docket reflects the procedural steps typical of an appellate record, but the substance has been shaped by a central dispute: whether Catherine Herridge—a veteran reporter widely associated with national security investigations—must identify the sources behind stories she published involving a Chinese-American scientist who was investigated by the FBI but not charged. Herridge’s efforts to resist disclosure have become a press-freedom flashpoint, with her attorneys arguing that requiring her to divulge confidential information would chill First Amendment protections for newsgathering.
On March 13, 2024, the CourtListener entry shows a sealed notice was received from the clerk of the U.S. District Court to supplement the notice of appeal. The appellate docket later lists a Form 72 submitted by the arguing attorney, Patrick F. Philbin, on behalf of appellant Catherine Herridge, with the filing noting that the form is restricted to protect counsel’s personal contact information. These entries underscore that the appeal’s record has been handled with attention to privacy and operational security—consistent with a case that has involved sensitive information and sealed materials.
The reporting that prompted the dispute, as described by accounts in the broader press, focused on what lawyers for Chen said were leaked items from the FBI probe. Those alleged leaks included excerpts of an FBI document summarizing an interview, personal photographs, and information drawn from immigration and naturalization records, along with material attributed to an internal FBI PowerPoint presentation. Those details were central to the question of whether Chen’s civil case could obtain source identification from Herridge through legal compulsion.
In September, Herridge was interviewed under oath by a lawyer for Chen, according to reporting summarized by media outlets and First Amendment commentary. She declined to answer dozens of questions about her sources, at one point invoking her understanding that additional judicial review in the case required her to decline the court order while “respectfully” invoking First Amendment rights. That exchange became part of the record in the broader contempt proceedings described in the press.
As the appellate matter developed, oral arguments were scheduled and held. On November 18, 2024, the CourtListener docket indicates oral argument was held before Judges Katsas, Childs, and Edwards, with the note that the argument was closed to the public in part. The partial closure reflected the presence of sensitive elements in the record and the need to balance open-court principles with protective measures in a case involving confidential investigative materials.
Beyond the procedural posture, the controversy has revolved around whether Herridge’s refusal to identify sources amounts to civil contempt and, if so, what the scope and limits of compelled disclosure should be when constitutional rights are asserted. A federal judge held Herridge in civil contempt for refusing to divulge her source for the series of Fox News stories, according to a report summarized by the Free Speech Center at MTSU. That account emphasized that Herridge’s refusals were not isolated; she repeatedly declined to answer in the manner she characterized as necessary to preserve her First Amendment challenge for further judicial review Free Speech Center.
Other reporting from Fortune similarly described the underlying allegations and the potential press-freedom implications. It noted that the stories Chen’s side pointed to examined purported ties between Chen and the Chinese military, and questioned whether a professional school founded by Herridge in Virginia had been used to help the Chinese government obtain information about American service members. Fortune also detailed the types of materials the defense contended were leaked, including interview summaries and information drawn from immigration and naturalization forms, as well as internal FBI presentation content Fortune.
By late 2025, the appellate record continued to show motion practice tied to further review. On November 14, 2025, the docket lists a sealed petition for rehearing and for rehearing en banc, filed by the appellant. The document’s length certification is listed as 3,899 words. Two days later, on November 20, 2025, another petition is shown as redacted, again for rehearing and rehearing en banc, with service by CM/ECF NDA and a certification length of 3,899 words. The use of sealed and redacted filings suggests that contested issues remain sensitive and that certain aspects of the court’s consideration are not intended for immediate public release.
While the specific holdings of the district court are not detailed in the snippet provided, the appellate entries, combined with accounts of contempt and the underlying journalistic dispute, indicate that the case is continuing to test the boundaries of First Amendment protections in litigation that seeks to pierce confidential sourcing. For observers of national security coverage and court enforcement, the proceedings in 24-5050 are being watched as a potential marker for how far courts may compel disclosure when journalists argue that revealing sources would undermine investigative reporting itself.
As the docket reflects ongoing rehearing requests and previously held oral argument, the next steps will likely determine whether Herridge’s contempt finding is upheld, narrowed, or reversed, and whether appellate judges will endorse a framework for balancing civil discovery demands against constitutional protections for newsgathering. Until the courts issue further decisions, the case remains a live referendum on the ability of reporters to protect sources—even when plaintiffs argue that those sources may hold evidence central to allegations connected to an FBI investigation CourtListener.
SHOP AMAZON BEST SELLERS, CLICK TO BUY FROM AMAZON.
SHOP AMAZON BEST SELLERS, CLICK TO BUY FROM AMAZON.
