Court Rules Against Justice Dept. Search of Reporter’s Computers

NYT Homepage

by Erik Wemple

February 25, 2026

AI-Generated Deep Dive Summary

A federal magistrate judge ruled that the court, rather than the Justice Department, would search devices seized from a Washington Post reporter’s home during an investigation involving classified information. The judge, William B. Porter of the Eastern District of Virginia, rejected the government's request for an "unsupervised, wholesale" search, citing concerns about privacy and press freedom. The case stemmed from an inquiry into Aurelio Perez-Lugones, a Maryland government contractor indicted for allegedly mishandling classified data. The FBI had seized devices belonging to reporter Hannah Natanson, who covers federal government issues for *The Post*. *The Washington Post* argued that the Justice Department's search would violate First Amendment protections and attorney-client privilege, as most of the materials on the devices were unrelated to the investigation and consisted of sensitive source information. The newspaper also pointed out that the Justice Department had failed to mention the Privacy Protection Act of 1980 during its pursuit of a search warrant for Natanson’s home. This law explicitly prohibits searches of journalists' materials unless there is probable cause linking them to specific crimes committed by the reporter. Judge Porter criticized the Justice Department for overlooking this legal safeguard, calling it "startling" that such an omission occurred. He emphasized the importance of court oversight in ensuring that government actions do not infringe on constitutional rights. The judge also noted that while courts typically grant prosecutors some latitude, the department’s failure to acknowledge relevant legal protections disturbed the baseline deference usually extended to law enforcement. In his ruling, Judge Porter outlined a process for reviewing the seized materials, ensuring that only relevant information tied directly to the investigation would be considered. This decision was praised by *The Post*, which highlighted the court's recognition of core First Amendment principles and its rejection of the government’s broad approach to searching journalistic work. The case has significant implications for press freedom, as it underscores the need to protect journalists’ sources and limit governmental overreach in national security investigations. This ruling is particularly important for readers interested in news because it addresses critical issues of privacy, press freedom, and the balance between national security and constitutional rights. By asserting judicial oversight over such searches, the court has set a precedent that could influence similar cases in the future, reinforcing the importance of safeguarding journalists’

Verticals

newsgeneral

Originally published on NYT Homepage on 2/25/2026