Judge Scolds Justice Department, Questions Government Role in Seizure of Hannah Natanson’s Devices
A federal judge in Virginia declined to immediately order the return of devices taken from reporter Hannah Natanson in a January home raid, and sharply criticized the government’s handling of the matter. The exchange highlighted judicial concern about the breadth of the seizure and whether the government should be permitted to review material tied to press activities.
Development details — Hannah Natanson
At a hearing in the eastern district of Virginia, Judge William B. Porter acknowledged the grave consequences of the January search that removed two laptops, a phone and a Garmin watch from the reporter’s home. The judge said that "Ms Natanson has basically been deprived of her life’s work, " and confirmed he would not immediately lift a pause on the government’s review of the seized material.
Lawyers for the government argued that the material on the devices is necessary for an investigation into a government contractor named Aurelio Perez-Lugones and asked the court to allow its review to proceed. Lawyers representing the news organization and Natanson countered that the seizure has inflicted substantial personal and professional harm and urged either the immediate return of the devices or a neutral review that does not leave the files solely in government hands.
Counsel for Natanson said the raid opened the door to broader intrusions into reporters’ homes, while the organization’s lawyer urged the court to reject use of a government filter team and to consider a court-led review. One lawyer told the judge that more than 1, 200 confidential sources are following the proceeding to see whether their identities will be exposed to investigators.
Context and pressure points
The hearing turned sharply on the government’s failure to raise a law that provides protections for journalists when seeking judicial approval for searches. Judge Porter said he had initially declined to sign the warrant and pressed government counsel Christian Dibblee on why the Privacy Protection Act was not presented to the court. "Did you not do it because you didn’t know, or because you decided not to tell me?" the judge asked, expressing frustration over the omission.
The judge also voiced concern that allowing unfettered government review could undermine public confidence in protections for press materials. "It’s not crazy to think that public confidence might be lost if the government gets to look at information that is protected, " he said, signaling heightened judicial scrutiny of prosecutorial decisions in cases involving journalists.
Immediate impact
The immediate consequence falls on Hannah Natanson and her reporting operations: counsel for Natanson said she has "suffered significant harm, both personally and professionally, as a result of the government’s actions" and described lasting consequences from the search. The presence of the devices in government hands has also raised alarm among journalists and newsrooms tracking how investigations into handling of classified or sensitive material intersect with press protections.
Practically, the court’s pause has prevented the government from completing its review of the seized files, and lawyers for the news organization have demanded participation in any review process. They argued that allowing the government to unilaterally determine what is relevant risks exposing confidential sources and journalistic work product to investigators.
Forward outlook
The court has not yet resolved whether the government will be ordered to return the devices, whether a court-managed review will be used, or whether the government’s pause will be lifted. The judge’s pointed questions about the omission of statutory protections and his emphasis on the potential harms to press freedom indicate the legal standards he will weigh as the case progresses.
What makes this notable is the degree of judicial skepticism expressed about the government’s approach and the explicit focus on who should review seized journalistic material. The timing matters because the resolution will set immediate procedural contours for how similar investigative seizures are handled going forward. The matter remains under review, and the next steps will unfold through additional filings and further court consideration of whether the devices must be returned or reviewed under court supervision.
