A federal judge signaled Friday he intends to order the government to return electronic devices seized from a Washington Post reporter’s Virginia home during an investigation into a leaked classified documents case.
The case raises First Amendment concerns about the government’s authority to search journalists’ materials. The seizure has prompted the reporter’s confidential sources to cease communication, highlighting press-freedom advocates’ concerns about what they characterize as an increasingly aggressive posture by federal prosecutors toward leak investigations involving journalists.
U.S. Magistrate Judge William Porter indicated Friday he plans to order the government to return electronic devices seized from Washington Post reporter Hannah Natanson’s Virginia home. The judge offered no elaboration but said he had “a pretty good sense of what I’m going to do here.”
The Seizure and Investigation
Porter heard arguments on whether devices taken during an FBI search of Natanson’s Alexandria home on January 14 must be returned. Federal agents seized a phone, two laptops, a recorder, a portable hard drive, and a Garmin smart watch as part of an investigation into a Pentagon contractor accused of leaking classified information to Natanson.
The case centers on whether the government’s interest in pursuing a leak investigation outweighs the reporter’s rights under the First Amendment and federal law protecting journalists’ materials.
Pentagon contractor Aurelio Luis Perez-Lugones was arrested on January 8 and charged with unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents. Federal prosecutors allege that Perez-Lugones took home printouts of classified material from his workplace and later passed them to Natanson.
The FBI seized Natanson’s devices while investigating whether she had received the leaked classified information. A month after the seizure, Porter issued a temporary order barring the government from reviewing the material on those devices while the question of their return was litigated.
First Amendment Protections
Simon Latcovich, an attorney for the Post, argued Friday that the seizure violates the Privacy Protection Act—a federal law that protects journalists from searches when they are not subjects of investigation. He said the act applies because Natanson is not a target of the government’s case against Perez-Lugones.
The seizure has had an immediate impact on Natanson’s reporting. “Since the seizure, those sources have dried up,” Latcovich told the judge, referring to confidential sources who routinely provided her with information.
Latcovich characterized the government’s position as asking the court to “run roughshod” over the First Amendment. He requested that if Porter decides to privately review the seized material before determining what the government can access, the judge allow Post attorneys and Natanson to view it first so they can argue for keeping portions confidential.
The Government’s Argument
Justice Department attorneys defended the seizure, arguing that the government is entitled to keep the material because it contains evidence relevant to an ongoing investigation with national security implications.
Gordon Kromberg, a Justice Department attorney, told the judge, “I certainly understand your frustration,” regarding the government’s failure to cite the Privacy Protection Act in the original search warrant application. Porter’s response was curt: “That’s minimizing it.”
Christian Dibblee, another Justice Department attorney, acknowledged that the government recognizes Porter did not authorize a “fishing expedition.” “The government does take that seriously,” he said.
Timeline and Broader Pattern
Porter said he intends to issue a written decision before a follow-up hearing scheduled for March 4.
Press freedom advocates view the case as evidence of increasingly aggressive federal prosecution of leak investigations involving journalists. Latcovich told the court, “There is a pattern here, your honor, that this is a part of.”