A federal magistrate judge in Washington, D.C., ruled on Tuesday, February 24, 2026, that the Justice Department may not search electronic devices seized from Washington Post reporter Hannah Natanson, ordering the court to conduct any necessary review itself amid an ongoing national security investigation.
Magistrate Judge William Porter issued the decision after finding that an unrestricted government search risked violating Natanson’s First Amendment rights as a journalist. “The court will conduct the review itself,” Porter wrote in his order, emphasizing the need to protect press freedoms while addressing potential classified material.
The ruling stems from an FBI raid on Natanson’s home on January 14, 2026. Agents seized her phone, two laptops, a digital recorder, a portable hard drive, and a Garmin smartwatch as part of an investigation into a government contractor accused of illegally retaining classified documents. Natanson’s reporting has focused on federal employees laid off during the Trump administration’s cost-cutting initiatives—led in part by Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency—who developed nearly 1,200 confidential sources across 120 government agencies.
Following the raid, The Washington Post filed an emergency motion seeking the immediate return of the devices. Judge Porter initially barred the government from searching them pending a hearing. In Tuesday’s ruling, he sharply criticized the Justice Department for omitting any analysis of the Privacy Protection Act of 1980 (PPA)—a federal statute that safeguards journalists’ work product and materials from government searches absent compelling circumstances.
“This omission has seriously undermined the court’s confidence in the government’s disclosures in this proceeding,” Porter wrote. While acknowledging the legitimate concern over classified information, he ruled that “an appropriate search process must account for the need to identify and protect classified information before any materials are returned. But that does not mean that in all cases the government gets to conduct that search.”
At a hearing last Friday, Porter described the seizure as having “basically deprived [Natanson] of her life’s work,” highlighting the severe impact on her ability to report and protect sources.
The Washington Post hailed the decision as a “victory for press freedom.” In a statement, the newspaper said allowing the government to search the devices “would risk the identities of her sources and could have a chilling effect on future sources who wish to speak to reporters.”
The case has drawn widespread attention from press freedom advocates, who argue it represents a dangerous precedent in the use of national security justifications to access journalists’ materials. The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press and other organizations filed amicus briefs supporting Natanson and The Post.
The Justice Department has not yet publicly commented on the ruling or indicated whether it plans to appeal. The investigation into the government contractor continues separately.
The ruling underscores ongoing tensions between national security imperatives and First Amendment protections, particularly in cases involving leaks, classified information, and aggressive leak investigations under the current administration.
