Judge’s Rebuke Highlights Legal Misstep Magistrate Judge William Porter publicly chastised the Department of Justice for overlooking the Privacy Protection Act of 1980 during a warrant request targeting Washington Post reporter Hannah Natanson, asking “How could you miss it?” and expressing disbelief that the law might not apply [1]. He noted that the DOJ had previously declined the warrant multiple times, underscoring procedural failures. Porter’s frustration reflects broader concerns about government compliance with press‑freedom statutes.

Details of the Washington Post Raid Federal agents entered Natanson’s Virginia home in January, seizing a phone, two computers, and a Garmin watch as part of an investigation into her communications with a former contractor [1]. The seizure prompted the Post to file a lawsuit, after which Porter temporarily blocked investigators from examining the devices. The raid was justified by the DOJ on the basis of alleged national‑defense leaks, not by any criminal probe of Natanson herself.

Privacy Protection Act Limits Government Searches The 1980 act bars searches of a journalist’s work product unless the reporter is the subject of a criminal investigation, a condition not met in Natanson’s case [1]. DOJ attorney Christian Dibblee attributed the warrant request to senior officials “several rungs above” him, acknowledging the department’s misapplication of the statute. The judge’s ruling reinforces the act’s protective scope for press materials.

Contractor’s Plea and Ongoing Investigation Former government contractor Aurelio Luis Perez‑Lugones faced five counts of unlawfully transmitting national‑defense information to Natanson via an encrypted app and one count of unlawful retention, entering a not‑guilty plea late last month [1]. His alleged leaks, rather than Natanson’s reporting, formed the basis of the DOJ’s justification for the warrant. The case against Perez‑Lugones remains active, while Natanson is not under investigation.

Potential Remedy and Timeline Porter is weighing a “filter team” solution that would allow a court‑supervised group to separate warrant‑relevant data from unrelated material, or ordering the return of the seized devices [1]. He indicated that a definitive ruling is expected within the coming weeks. The outcome will set a precedent for how courts balance national‑security concerns with press‑freedom protections.