A secretive Justice Department push to obtain a reporter’s LinkedIn records is alarming federal judges who fear the “overbroad” demand could expose confidential sources unrelated to the investigation.
The dispute spilled into the public Tuesday during arguments before the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. Prosecutors are seeking details about roughly 1,900 LinkedIn interactions involving six users as part of an undisclosed national security leak investigation, Politico reported.
“If the confidentiality of its sources is going to be broadly compromised by an overbroad disclosure order that reveals sources … that have nothing to do with or little to do with the particulars of a leak, doesn’t that compromise a reporter’s interest and the First Amendment interest?” asked Judge Harvie Wilkinson, a Reagan appointee.
A federal judge approved the Justice Department’s demand in June and barred LinkedIn from notifying the affected users, according to Politico.
"That order required LinkedIn to turn over information about specific people’s use of the service, which can reveal connections between users," the outlet said. "But a search warrant would typically be required before law enforcement could see the content of their communications."
LinkedIn is now fighting parts of the order, arguing that the company should be allowed to make a limited disclosure that could help investigators narrow the records they need. Prosecutors insist that LinkedIn has no authority to demand those limits during a criminal investigation.
Judge James Wynn also questioned the government’s position that third-party companies cannot challenge such orders — even when the requested records contain “wholly irrelevant” information.
“We need some kind of governing rule,” Wynn, an Obama appointee, said.
Google, Apple, Meta, X, the ACLU and the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press have backed LinkedIn’s position.
The ongoing legal feud “is strikingly similar to a secretive court fight” that unfolded between special counsel Jack Smith and X when prosecutors sought President Donald Trump’s account information.
The Supreme Court, in that case, declined to hear X’s appeal.
