The Justice Department can’t look through the contents of devices taken from a Washington Post reporter. A federal judge, William Porter, made this ruling while criticizing the government’s actions in the case.
This decision is a surprising change. Just six weeks ago, Judge Porter approved a raid on the reporter’s home, where investigators seized a phone, two computers, and a smartwatch. His latest ruling expresses serious concerns about the broad nature of the search warrant.
Judge Porter stated that allowing investigators to access all data without clear justification would be like giving them an “unlawful general warrant.” He emphasized that the search should only focus on data directly linked to the leak investigation.
He pointed out that allowing the government to search a journalist’s work raises significant ethical issues. “It’s like leaving the fox to guard the henhouse,” he remarked, highlighting the conflict of interest in such actions.
Porter also rejected requests from both the reporter’s legal team and the DOJ to filter the data. Instead, he will personally oversee the review to ensure that only relevant information is examined.
The case centers around Hannah Natanson, who is not under investigation but has been linked to a government contractor facing charges for leaking classified information. Natanson argues that the seizure of her devices hinders her ability to work and communicate with many sources.
Indeed, Judge Porter acknowledged that the government’s actions restricted Natanson’s First Amendment rights. He criticized their suggestion that she simply acquire new devices and start fresh, calling it “unjust and unreasonable.”
In a broader context, this situation shines a light on ongoing tensions between government investigations and press freedoms. The importance of safeguarding journalistic integrity is echoed by recent statistics indicating that over 60% of journalists believe they face increased risks due to government actions.
The ruling also highlights a specific law—the Privacy Protection Act of 1980—which protects journalists from having their materials seized unless they are the focus of a criminal investigation. Judge Porter noted that he was unaware of this law when he approved the search warrant, which raises questions about the government’s transparency.
Had the DOJ acknowledged this act, Judge Porter implied he might have made a different decision on the warrant. This incident underlines the importance of clarity in such legal matters, especially when journalism and the truth are at stake.
The Washington Post praised Porter’s recognition of First Amendment protections, signaling ongoing debates about the balance between national security and the freedom of the press.
