Appeals Court Rebukes Trump DOJ Over Demand for Journalists’ LinkedIn Records

A federal appeals court ruled Tuesday that the Trump administration went too far in demanding journalists’ LinkedIn records as part of a classified leak investigation, warning that the sweeping request threatened press freedom by potentially exposing confidential sources unrelated to the investigation.The unanimous three-judge panel of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ordered a lower court to narrow the government’s demand, which sought 18 months of LinkedIn communications metadata belonging to journalists at an unidentified news organization. The journalists had collectively published nearly 1,000 stories during that period, fewer than 5% of which appeared related to the classified information under investigation. The records could have revealed the identities of sources who had nothing to do with the alleged leak. “Confidentiality of sources is the lifeblood of a free press,” Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III, a Reagan appointee, wrote in the ruling. “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.” The investigation began after an unidentified news outlet published an article describing a top-secret U.S. military operation in a foreign country. The Justice Department subsequently obtained a court order requiring LinkedIn to provide journalists’ metadata, along with a separate order preventing the company from notifying the journalists or their employer. LinkedIn challenged both orders, arguing that the government was seeking information far beyond what was relevant to its investigation. The court also directed the lower court to reconsider a gag order preventing LinkedIn from notifying the news outlet, saying the company should be allowed to inform a single, government-vetted attorney unless prosecutors can justify maintaining the restriction. The judges stopped short of blocking the investigation entirely, acknowledging the government’s legitimate interest in protecting classified national security information. “Serious security and speech claims are in tension in this case,” Wilkinson wrote. “There is space under law for both.”