A federal judge expressed strong criticism of the Justice Department on Friday for its failure to acknowledge a critical law designed to protect journalists from government searches when it sought permission to raid the home of Washington Post reporter Hannah Natanson earlier this year. Magistrate Judge William Porter questioned the department’s oversight during a hearing in Alexandria, Virginia, expressing disbelief that the Privacy Protection Act of 1980 did not apply to this case.
“How could you miss it? How could you think it doesn’t apply?” Judge Porter asked a DOJ attorney, indicating his frustration with the lack of legal consideration given to the protections afforded to journalists. He highlighted that he had previously denied multiple requests for warrants related to Natanson, reinforcing his belief that the law should have been a primary factor in the department’s decision-making.
Justice Department lawyer Christian Dibblee informed the court that the decision to pursue the warrant came from officials higher up the chain, acknowledging Judge Porter’s frustration but downplaying its significance. The judge responded emphatically, emphasizing that the situation had serious implications on Natanson’s ability to perform her work, noting that she has essentially been deprived of her professional life due to the raid.
The Privacy Protection Act is intended to shield journalists and their materials from governmental searches unless the journalist themselves is under investigation. Although CNN has reported that Natanson is not currently being investigated, the DOJ justified the raid based on her communications with a government contractor accused of leaking classified information. Last month, federal agents seized devices from her home during the raid, which has since prompted legal action from Natanson and the Post in an effort to recover the items. Porter has temporarily barred law enforcement from examining these devices as the case progresses.
During the hearing, DOJ attorneys contended that they believed the law was inapplicable in this instance, with Dibblee suggesting that the warrant did not trigger any adverse authority that required disclosure. Judge Porter contested this viewpoint, expressing his bewilderment at the lack of oversight from the department.
Press freedom advocates have raised alarms about the DOJ’s conduct, arguing that their actions represent a clear violation of press protections. Gabe Rottman, vice president of policy for the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, criticized the DOJ for failing to alert the judge about the law’s relevance in this case, cataloging it as a grave threat to journalistic freedoms.
As the proceedings continue, Judge Porter is considering a request from Natanson and her employer to have the seized devices returned or, alternatively, to establish a method to sort through the extensive volume of information to separate relevant materials from non-relevant ones. The judge voiced concern over the government’s need for such an expansive amount of data, acknowledging the complexities of digital information management while remaining sympathetic to Natanson’s plight.
Judge Porter is expected to issue a ruling in the coming weeks, with many observers hopeful that a decision will reinforce the protections granted to journalists under the law and uphold the essential role they play in a democratic society.