A judge granted The Washington Post’s request to prevent the U.S. government from reviewing materials seized from one of its reporters.
The interim order is a small victory for press freedom advocates who argue that the seizure of materials belonging to reporter Hannah Natanson is a violation of her First Amendment rights and a threat to journalism as a whole.
Recommended stories
list of 3 itemsend of list
Wednesday’s order, issued by Magistrate Judge William Porter, requires the federal government not to filter the seized materials until a hearing is held on Feb. 6.
Porter argued that the suspension would allow the U.S. Department of Justice to respond to the Washington Post’s charges.
Natanson is not the subject of a federal investigation. And the United States has long established laws and norms to protect journalists’ rights to report on sensitive topics from whistleblowing sources.
But on January 14, President Donald Trump’s administration executed a search warrant on Natanson’s home. Over the past year, she has reported on changes in the federal government under the Trump administration, with 1,169 new sources providing material to her.
The Justice Department claims it needed a search warrant to gather information about government contractor Aurelio Luis Pérez-Lugones, who was arrested on January 8 on suspicion of smuggling classified documents.
But a cleanout of Natanson’s home removed her work computer, post-issue cell phone, personal MacBook Pro, 1 terabyte hard drive, voice recorder and Garmin watch.
In a court filing opposing the seizure, attorneys argued that Ms. Natanson’s electronic devices contained “years of information about past and present confidential sources and other unpublished reporting materials, including those she used for current reporting.”
“Most of the data seized is not even likely to correspond to a warrant that seeks only records received from or relating to a single government contractor,” the complaint alleges.
The complaint added that the six devices seized contained terabytes of data spanning her journalism career.
“Natanson’s device essentially contains her entire professional world, including more than 30,000 Post emails in the last year alone,” it reads.
The paper is suing the Justice Department for the return of the materials, and the case will be heard in federal court in Virginia.
“The outrageous seizure of journalists’ confidential reporting materials is chilling speech, paralyzing reporting, and causing irreparable harm every day the government continues to obtain these materials,” the newspaper said in a statement.
“We asked the court to order the immediate return of all seized materials and a ban on their use. Anything less would authorize future raids on news outlets and normalize censorship through search warrants.”
The Trump administration has come under intense scrutiny for its combative approach to the media, with critics accusing it of trying to erode free speech rights through newspaper and legal protests.
But President Trump and his allies said they remain committed to busting “leakers” in the government who release classified material to the media.
For example, Attorney General Pam Bondi accused Mr. Natanson of “reporting confidential and unlawfully leaked information.”
“The leaker is now in jail,” she said in a social media post, referring to Perez-Lugones.
“The Trump Administration will not tolerate illegal leaks of classified information that, if reported, pose grave risks to our national security and the brave men and women who serve our country.”
White House press secretary Caroline Levitt expressed a similar position, warning that the Trump administration reserves the right to take legal action against anyone it believes is involved in illegal activity.
“The administration will not tolerate any leaks, especially from within the U.S. government’s national security apparatus, that endanger the integrity and national security of our country,” she said.
“Legal action will be taken against those who break the law, whether they are members of the media or employees of federal agencies.”
The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution declares that the government may not enact any laws that “abridge the freedom of speech or the press.”
For decades, the Supreme Court has ruled that governments may suppress media coverage in the face of a “clear and present danger,” but that the burden of proving that such a danger exists lies with authorities.
The Washington Post was involved in one of the cases that upheld that standard, 1971’s New York Times v. United States.
In this case, Republican President Richard Nixon’s administration tried to prevent the Times and Post from publishing classified material known as the Pentagon Papers, but the Supreme Court ruled that publication protected speech.
