Judge Miffed With DOJ Handling of WaPo Reporter Search

A U.S. Magistrate Judge sharply rebuked Justice Department prosecutors Friday in a federal court hearing in Alexandria, Virginia, for failing to address a 1980 law protecting journalists when seeking a warrant to search the home of Washington Post reporter Hannah Natanson.

Judge William B. Porter, who approved the January search warrant after rejecting earlier versions, grilled DOJ attorneys on their omission of the Privacy Protection Act (PPA). The law generally prohibits government searches of journalists' materials unless the journalist is suspected of a crime unrelated to routine newsgathering.

"How could you miss it? How could you say it doesn't apply?" Porter demanded, calling the PPA a "threshold question." He expressed deep frustration, stating it was hard to see how the law did not apply, and noted that the seizure had effectively deprived Natanson of "basically her life's work" — halting her reporting and jeopardizing more than 1,000 confidential sources.

The hearing centered on The Washington Post and Natanson's challenge to return the seized materials. Their attorney described the raid — based solely on newsgathering — as unprecedented, arguing it "froze" Natanson's reporting and chilled press freedom.

DOJ lawyers, including Gordon Kromberg and Christian Dibblee, defended the search as necessary to investigate potential criminal leaks of classified information from a government contractor to Natanson. They argued the PPA did not bar the action because it involved suspected criminal conduct. One prosecutor apologized for not explicitly raising the statute in the warrant application.

Agents seized Natanson's devices, including two laptops (one work-issued by The Post), a cellphone, voice recorder, portable hard drive, and Garmin watch. The Post has emphasized that neither Natanson nor the newspaper is a target of the probe.

The Justice Department plans to use a filter team of uninvolved FBI agents to review materials and separate irrelevant items.

Porter has temporarily barred government examination of the devices pending the challenge. He issued no final ruling Friday but indicated he had a "pretty good sense" of his approach and set a follow-up hearing for March 4. He appeared open to compromises, such as the court reviewing materials itself instead of direct government access.