FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:

New York, June 24, 2026 — A D.C. appeals court declined yesterday to pause an $800-per-day fine against investigative reporter Catherine Herridge for refusing to identify her confidential sources in response to a civil subpoena.

Herridge was held in contempt of court in 2024 for refusing to divulge sources for her reporting at Fox News on an investigation of a scientist and university president with alleged ties to the Chinese military. She asked for a pause of the daily fine while she petitions the Supreme Court to review the appeals court’s recent ruling against her, but her request was denied in yesterday’s one-sentence order.

The following can be attributed to Freedom of the Press Foundation (FPF) Chief of Advocacy Seth Stern:

“Every journalist who depends on confidential sources to inform the public should be alarmed that a reporter has been ordered to pay almost $1,000 a day for not burning her sources. Sources come forward at great personal and professional risk to expose government abuse and corruption because they believe journalists can protect them. Will future whistleblowers in D.C. and elsewhere trust investigative journalists who they now know may have to choose between keeping their word and financial ruin?

“The prospect of crippling fines will especially impact independent journalists like Herridge, at a time when corporate outlets are increasingly compromised. Congress needs to provide clear statutory protection against compelled disclosure of journalists’ sources by passing a strong shield law like the PRESS Act.”

Please contact us if you would like further comment.

freedom.press/issues/court-for…

ON THIS DAY – June 24

This day is actually one of the more awful days in the history of the Supreme Court, as any rulings that come OTD tend to be, well, bullshit.

1957 – The Supreme Court rules that obscenity is not protected by the first amendment (Roth v United States).

1982 – The Supreme Court rules the President cannot be sued for official actions that took place while in office (Nixon v Fitzgerald).

2022 – Roe v Wade is overturned (Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization).

Now, call me crazy, but I find that to be an awful trifecta.

On principle, the United States Pirate Party believes free speech does indeed include obscenity. The very idea that you can get in trouble or fined for saying or doing the wrong or inappropriate thing on TV or the radio (wherever there’s public viewing) is a slippery slope. Obscene or not obscene, profanity or otherwise, we don’t believe the state should hold this overreaching authority to control your free speech.

We think that’s fucking bullshit.

The President being placed above the law while President is certainly no something we strive for either. This ruling was actually expanded upon with 2024’s Trump v United States, which expanded this to Presidents having absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts that fall within their “exclusive sphere of constitutional authority,” at least presumptive immunity for other official acts within the outer perimeter of official responsibility, and no immunity for unofficial acts.

The President is not a King. The President is a public servant. We, the party that advocates for the end of qualified immunity, do not believe the President deserves such a privilege.

“In democracy, the leader stands in an essentially different relation to those whom he leads and, instead of substituting his will for theirs, aims at carrying out, not their “real will” as interpreted by him, but their actual will as understood by themselves.” – G.D.H. Cole

Finally, the overturning of Roe v Wade.

This might come as a shock to some of you, but we in the United States Pirate Party do believe in bodily autonomy. We also believe the state should not be an imposing ruler or exist to place fear into the hearts of its citizenry.

The subject of abortion is a touchy one for many, and is rarely an issue where someone holds a middle ground: you are typically pro-abortion, or anti-abortion. There is hardly a compromise people are willing to hear. Some wanted it banned, and some thought it shouldn’t be touched.

But let’s look at what this ruling has actually done.

28 year old Amber Thurman had a failed abortion (via pills) and required a routine Dilation and Curettage procedure to remove the tissue that was unexpelled and was causing her to go into sepsis.

The Georgia doctors were hesitant to perform the routine procedure due to Georgia’s new abortion laws, and since this was caused by a failed abortion, they were unsure if they could even procede.

After hours of delay, the D&C was performed, but it was too late.

Amber Thurman died of septic shock.

If you are anti-abortion, I ask: is this reality truly pro-life?

If you want to end abortion permanently, you should be pushing safe sex and making financial unviability a non-answer. In order to eliminate abortion, you don’t ban it outright, you’re supposed to eliminate the factors that necessitate an abortion until it becomes an archaic relic of the past.

We have unfortunately placed a large hurdle in front of progress, and took three steps back by overturning Roe v Wade. The state should not prevent doctors from doing their job out of fear. The state should not be able to threaten those who leave the state to receive an abortion (should a state that outlawed gambling have the right to punish you for traveling to Vegas?). The state should not. Period.

On this Day, we are reminded that the law of the land can sometimes be foul and unfair. We are reminded that the judicial branch is far from perfect. We are reminded that we have a lot of work that still needs to be done in our fight for a free and open society.

uspirates.org/otd-the-supreme-…