The Justice Department filed an appeal late Tuesday night of a magistrate judge’s order in Virginia that blocked federal officials from searching a Washington Post reporter’s electronic devices as part of a leak investigation.
Federal prosecutors argued in the appeal that applying for a warrant and executing a search are core functions of the executive branch. They said the judge’s order for the court to conduct the search violates the Constitution’s separation of powers and that journalists are not protected from searches when the government fears they could possess sensitive government materials.
Magistrate Judge William Porter ruled last monththat the government could not be trusted to conduct the search of Post reporter Hannah Natanson’s phone, laptop and other devices. Government officials might use the search to identify Natanson’s sources on other stories unrelated to the leak of classified documents they’re investigating, he suggested.
Porter said he, instead, would be responsible for conducting a narrow search of the electronic devices.
Natanson has said that she used those devices to connect with more than 1,200 confidential government sources and searching them could chill future government sources who may want to speak with the press.
In its appeal, prosecutors said reporters should not receive that degree of special treatment.
“As a reporter, Ms. Natanson is subject like any other citizen to a legitimate use of criminal legal process in a criminal investigation, such as this search warrant,” the appeal said. “The magistrate judge’s path forward instead creates a reporter-specific search procedure that binding precedent clearly rejects and that is unjustified by Ms. Natanson’s First Amendment activities.”
Federal prosecutors also argued that Porter and the court are not qualified to conduct a search of highly classified materials. Porter contended at the hearing last week that the court is equipped to handle the search and that he would take all necessary precautions.
“When classified information is at risk of further dissemination, as it is here, the search of the devices must be executed by an authority with the ‘necessary expertise’ in identifying classified material and ‘protecting’ this compelling government interest,” the appeal reads. “That authority and expertise belong to the Executive Branch, not the Judiciary.”
On Jan. 14, the federal government executed an unprecedented search of Natanson’s home in Virginia. Federal agents seized a phone, two laptops, a recorder, a portable hard drive and a Garmin watch.
Law enforcement officials said the search was part of their investigation into Aurelio Perez-Lugones, a systems administrator with a top-secret clearance who was indicted in Maryland in January on charges of unlawfully obtaining and sharing classified materials. President Donald Trump has referred to Perez-Lugones as “the leaker” of classified information regarding U.S. actions in Venezuela.
Federal prosecutors say Perez-Lugones exchanged messages with Natanson before his arrest. They acknowledged that only a small portion of the information on the devices seized from Natanson would be relevant to the case against Perez-Lugones. They asked Porter to allow a government filter team to search through the devices for relevant information. The filter team would then hand over relevant information to prosecutors.
Porter rejected that proposal. The government is in possession of Natanson’s devices, but it is barred from searching them.
Porter has acknowledged that the government’s seizure of the devices is preventing Natanson from doing her job as a journalist and has said that he wants to conduct the search expeditiously so that she can return to work.
The magistrate judge convened a hearing last Wednesday— more than a week after his ruling — to hash out a plan with both sides on how he would conduct the search.
At that hearing, the government said it planned to appeal his ruling. That means Porter’s planned search will likely be delayed — or canceled — until the appeal is settled.
The government’s appeal of that February ruling asks a district judge in the Eastern District of Virginia to review and reconsider the magistrate judge’s ruling. Magistrate judges are typically responsible for reviewing and signing off on search warrants.
It is rare for law enforcement officials to search reporters’ homes. A 1980 federal law limits the government’s ability to conduct searches of a reporter’s work. In addition, federal regulations intended to protect a free press are designed to make it more difficult to use aggressive law enforcement tactics against reporters to obtain the identities of their sources.
Natanson covers the federal workforce and has been part of The Post’s most high-profile and sensitive coverage related to government firings, national security and diplomacy during the second Trump administration. She contributed reporting to articles around the U.S. capture of Venezuela’s leader, Nicolás Maduro,in January.
In December, Natanson wrote a first-person account about her experience covering the federal workforce as the Trump administration created upheaval across the government. She detailed how she posted her secure phone number to an online forum for government workers and amassed more than 1,000 sources, with federal workers frequently contacting her to share frustrations and accounts from their offices.
Natanson wrote in a declaration to the court after the devices were seized that she typically receives anywhere from dozens to upward of 100 tips from sources per day on Signal. Since the seizure, the number of tips fell to zero.
The post Government appeals judge’s order barring search of Post reporter’s devices appeared first on Washington Post.
