A federal appeals court ruled Tuesday that the Justice Department’s demand for 18 months of journalists’ LinkedIn records was too broad, sending the case back to a judge to narrow the order. Investigators were looking for the source of classified information about a U.S. military operation overseas. The unanimous opinion allows the investigation to continue while requiring the lower court to examine how much of the requested material actually bears on the leak.
The records sought would identify people the journalists corresponded with on LinkedIn, including sources for stories unrelated to the investigation. The ruling by the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals also requires the lower court to revisit a separate order barring LinkedIn from telling the news organization about the demand. The Associated Press reported that the public court record does not identify the outlet.
What the government sought
The Justice Department obtained a disclosure order after learning that some of the journalists might have communicated with confidential sources through LinkedIn. The order sought metadata rather than the text of their messages. That distinction matters: knowing who corresponded with a reporter can reveal a source even when investigators never read what the two said. As Bloomberg Law reported, the judges found that the request could expose many confidential sources beyond those relevant to the leak.
During the period covered by the order, the journalists collectively published nearly 1,000 articles. The panel said fewer than 5% appeared to have anything to do with the subject of the investigation. That comparison describes the journalists’ published work, not the proportion of LinkedIn messages that were relevant. It nevertheless illustrates why the court found that a single order covering all of their correspondence over that period could reach far beyond the story that prompted the inquiry.
Why the scope of the request matters
The federal statute requires the government to give a judge specific facts supporting reasonable grounds to believe the records are relevant and material to an ongoing criminal investigation. A provider can ask a court to change or set aside an order that seeks an unusually large volume of records or imposes an undue burden. The appeals panel concluded that the burden can come from the demand for irrelevant material itself, even if the company can readily assemble it.
The judges recognized that investigators often begin without knowing which records will ultimately matter. They did not require the government to exclude every irrelevant record before seeking an order. The question is whether the government can explain why a group of records belongs in the request, even if it cannot predict what each individual record will show. But Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III, writing for the three judges, said the lower court must scrutinize parts of the request that appear to have little connection to the case. If the government cannot justify those parts, the judge must narrow the order. In weighing how far it can reach, the judge must also account for the First Amendment interests of the journalists and their sources. The panel also held that LinkedIn could raise those press interests in court: the secrecy order kept the journalists and their employer from raising them on their own, and the company faced a legal demand for records it wanted to withhold.
A separate dispute over who can be told
A second order prohibited LinkedIn from telling the journalists, their employer or others about the records demand for a year. A separate provision of the Stored Communications Act allows courts to delay notice where disclosure could jeopardize an investigation, intimidate witnesses or lead to destruction of evidence, among other risks. The panel acknowledged the government’s interest in keeping a national security investigation confidential but faulted the lower court for giving too little consideration to a narrower alternative.
LinkedIn proposed informing one attorney for the news outlet who had previously been vetted by the government. The company argued that the attorney could help identify ways to narrow the request. The appeals court said that exception should be allowed unless the government gives a stronger explanation on remand for why telling that lawyer would compromise the inquiry. The judges did not grant LinkedIn access to confidential materials prosecutors submitted to obtain the orders. On that point, they upheld the lower court.
What the lower court must decide next
The case returns to U.S. District Judge Elizabeth Hanes, who issued the order that LinkedIn challenged. The AP reported that the panel did not set the disclosure order aside entirely. Hanes must weigh what the investigation needs, how much unrelated material the demand could capture, and whether a smaller set of records would serve the government’s purpose. The appeals judges left the exact boundaries for her to determine.
The distinction is consequential for both sides. Prosecutors can still seek evidence about who disclosed classified information, but they must explain why the scope they seek is justified. Reporters have an interest in keeping unrelated sources confidential even when a court allows some records to be disclosed. The next order will determine how those interests are balanced in this case, including whether the outlet’s lawyer can help the judge separate relevant contacts from unrelated ones.
