In a move to protect First Amendment freedoms, a federal appeals court has blocked the Trump administration’s attempt to obtain a wide array of journalists’ LinkedIn records in its national security leak probe. The court held that such an “overbroad” search would “deal a damaging blow to First Amendment freedoms” and expose confidential sources who have no bearing on the investigation.
Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson, a Reagan appointee, wrote for the three-judge panel in a unanimous decision: “Confidentiality of sources is the lifeblood of a free press.”
“Without confidentiality, the ability of journalists to report on events of large importance and governmental behavior of dubious legality and integrity could not help but be hampered,” he wrote, per Politico.
The decision forces a district court to put much tighter limits on the records the Trump administration can see, balancing legitimate national security concerns with the First Amendment. It also undercuts a Justice Department inquiry into a leak to an unidentified news organization that ran an article on “a top-secret United States military operation in a foreign country,” including classified intelligence on “special operations” not found in other public reports.
While it is not immediately clear which outlet and piece of reporting set off the probe, the ruling arrives as the Trump administration has been making an aggressive push for reporters’ files in more than one leak case.
For this matter, prosecutors asked LinkedIn to produce an 18-month log of journalists’ private messages, enough to show who they were talking to, but not what was said. U.S. District Judge Elizabeth Hanes of Newport News, Virginia, then put an order in place to keep LinkedIn from telling the journalists of the government’s request.
LinkedIn took issue with the scope of Hanes’ order in proceedings that started last year, arguing it would do harm to its customers and curtail its freedom of communication. The Richmond-based appeals court was mostly in accord.
“While that order may catch sources relevant to the government’s investigation, it will also inevitably sweep in every other confidential source with whom the targeted journalists spoke,” the judges wrote.
They pointed out that the journalists covered almost 1,000 stories during the relevant period and investigated others that never saw print. Many appeared far removed from the article at issue.
Spokespeople for the Justice Department and the U.S. Attorney’s Office in the Eastern District of Virginia did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
In his ruling, Wilkinson offered a broader defense of the press, calling it a threat to “autocrats worldwide.” Reporting can expose things the government would rather keep hidden, whether to avoid embarrassment or scrutiny, he wrote.
“This does not confer upon government the right to silence," he added.
