Appeals Court Orders Narrower Search of Journalists’ LinkedIn Records

A unanimous three-judge panel of the Fourth Circuit ruled that the Justice Department cannot obtain a broad set of LinkedIn records identifying people who communicated with journalists over 18 months. The case returns to U.S. District Judge Elizabeth Hanes, who must narrow the disclosure order. The journalists’ employer and the news organization whose story prompted the investigation have not been identified.

The administration opened the probe after a news outlet published a story revealing classified information about a highly classified American military mission carried out in a foreign country. The requested records would show the names of people who exchanged LinkedIn messages with the journalists, but not the messages themselves.

The journalists collectively published nearly 1,000 stories during the period covered by the order. The appeals panel said fewer than 5% appeared related to the leak investigation, meaning the broad request could expose many sources with no apparent connection to it.

Writing for the panel, Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson said a wholesale search for reporters’ records could undermine informed public discussion. The court also rejected LinkedIn’s request to cancel the order altogether, saying press freedoms must be weighed against the government’s responsibility to protect national security information.

The panel said the lower court was entitled to give the government substantial leeway, but not to approve a request simply because the data would be easy to collect. It sent the case back for a more limited order.

Court Checks Trump Administration’s Broad Search for Journalists’ Sources

A federal appeals court has curtailed the Trump administration’s sweeping effort to identify people who communicated with journalists, ruling that national security investigations do not justify collecting reporters’ source records wholesale. The unanimous 4th Circuit decision sends the case back to U.S. District Judge Elizabeth Hanes to sharply narrow the order.

The Justice Department sought 18 months of LinkedIn records that would identify everyone who exchanged messages with the journalists, though the records would not reveal the messages themselves. The journalists published nearly 1,000 stories during that period, and the panel said fewer than 5% appeared connected to the investigation.

The probe began after a news outlet published classified information about a highly classified American military mission carried out abroad. The outlet and the journalists have not been identified. The court recognized the government’s duty to protect national security, but said that broad collection would expose confidential sources unrelated to the case and threaten informed public discussion.

Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson wrote that the government’s latitude in an investigation has limits. The ruling also refused LinkedIn’s request to void the order entirely, leaving the district court to balance legitimate security concerns against journalists’ First Amendment rights. The outcome draws a needed boundary around a government effort capable of chilling confidential contact with the press.

Appeals Court Preserves Targeted Leak Probe While Limiting LinkedIn Demand

The appeals court did not shut down the Trump administration’s investigation into the disclosure of classified information. Instead, it sent the case back for a narrower order, recognizing that protecting national security and safeguarding press freedoms both matter.

The Justice Department’s probe followed publication of a story revealing a highly classified American military mission carried out in a foreign country. Its request covered 18 months of LinkedIn records identifying people who communicated with the journalists, but not the contents of their messages. The three-judge panel rejected LinkedIn’s bid to quash the order outright while finding its scope too broad.

The journalists published nearly 1,000 stories during the period, and fewer than 5% appeared to concern the subject of the investigation. That gap led the panel to conclude the request could expose many sources with no connection to the leak. Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson said the government deserves considerable leeway to maintain the integrity of its inquiry, but that leeway is not unlimited.

The ruling leaves the district court to craft a more focused demand. It recognizes that the government has a responsibility to investigate disclosures of classified information, while requiring that its search for records be tied more closely to that purpose.