DOJ seeking reporter’s LinkedIn records in secretive First Amendment court fight

Por Kyle Cheney and Josh Gerstein — POLITICO – TOP Stories

A secret, months-long battle between tech titans and the Justice Department — over prosecutors’ effort to obtain details on a journalist’s LinkedIn interactions for use in a national security leak probe — spilled into view Tuesday during a federal court argument in Virginia.

Though the details of the case remain sealed, a panel of the Richmond-based 4th Circuit Court of Appeals described the stakes in stark terms: a fight to find balance between the government’s life-and-death national security interests and the First Amendment protections for reporters to maintain the secrecy of their sources, particularly when investigators seek to obtain them from third-party companies.

Joshua Ferrentino, a Justice Department national security attorney, told the court that prosecutors are demanding details of about 1,900 LinkedIn interactions from six users as part of the unspecified probe.

A judge in the Eastern District of Virginia granted that request in June and appended a “non-disclosure order” prohibiting LinkedIn from alerting its users to the subpoena.

That order required LinkedIn to turn over information about specific people’s use of the service, which can reveal connections between users. But a search warrant would typically be required before law enforcement could see the content of their communications.It’s unclear whether such warrants have been sought or obtained in this investigation.

Ari Holtzblatt, an attorney for LinkedIn, said the firm is seeking to challenge aspects of the order as overly broad and wants to make a limited disclosure that could help investigators pinpoint only the evidence they need for the ongoing leak probe. Prosecutors say the company has no power to demand such narrowing in a criminal investigation.

“I’m looking for a balance,” said Judge Harvie Wilkinson, a Reagan appointee.

The fight comes at a sensitive moment for national media, which has seen reporters targeted by subpoenas and search warrants in leak probes. Attorney General Todd Blanche and FBI Director Kash Patel have said they aren’t seeking to prosecute journalists but don’t view their testimony or data as off limits when pursuing leaks of national security information. Courts have bristled at investigators’ tactics, contending that they have failed to follow procedures intended to make the pursuit of reporters’ information a last resort.

Wilkinson pressed Holtzblatt on whether the administration has a “legitimate national security interest” in being able to identify the source of leaks that could “put lives in jeopardy by disclosing operational details” or otherwise hand sensitive intelligence to adversaries. But when questioning Ferrentino, Wilkinson emphasized the existential significance of reporters’ ability to promise confidentiality to their sources.

“If the confidentiality of its sources are going to be broadly compromised by an overbroad disclosure order that reveals sources … that have nothing to do with or little to do with the particulars of a leak, doesn’t that compromise a reporter’s interest and the First Amendment interest?” Wilkinson asked Tuesday.

He also noted that reporters’ inability to protect sources on platforms like LinkedIn might lead them to refuse to use those platforms altogether.

Judge James Wynn, an Obama appointee, raised concerns about the Justice Department’s position that third-party companies have no ability to challenge court orders to hand over records even if they know the records contain “wholly irrelevant” information.

“We need some kind of governing rule,” Wynn said.

Several other major tech companies — Google, Apple, Meta and X— along with the ACLU and Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press,have submitted amicus briefs in the case to the appeals court backing LinkedIn’s position.

The matter was the subject of a 40-minute public session during which attorneys and judges largely labored to avoid disclosing details of a case that remains under seal. A sealed hearing was held afterward. Nevertheless, clues about the case slipped out during the argument and are included on the appeals court docket, which contains limited information about the case. The docket shows that the district court case was filed Nov. 6, 2025 with a ruling against LinkedIn issued on June 3, 2026. The company appealed the order two days later.

The battle is strikingly similar to a secretive court fight that played out for months between special counsel Jack Smith and X. over prosecutors’ efforts to obtain President Donald Trump’s account information. Holtzblatt, then the attorney for X, squared off against Smith’s team before the D.C. Circuit, arguing that the company — recently purchased by Elon Musk — should be permitted to disclose the search warrant to Trump’s attorneys. Twitter’s foot-dragging led to a contempt order and fines before the company ultimately complied.

Months later, the Supreme Court declined to take up X’s appeal.

Fonte: POLITICO – TOP Stories