2026年2月20日 美国东部时间晚上10:17 / 路透社
美国华盛顿特区《华盛顿邮报》总部，2026年2月4日。路透社/亚伦·施瓦茨 [购买许可权，在新标签页打开]
- 摘要
- 法官质疑司法部遗漏1980年隐私法相关内容
- 检察官称该法律不适用于国家安全调查
- 《华盛顿邮报》寻求返还被扣押材料
弗吉尼亚州亚历山大市，2月20日（路透社） – 周五，美国一名法官就司法部上个月对《华盛顿邮报》一名记者住所进行搜查的处理方式向司法部律师提出严厉质疑。
美国治安法官威廉·波特（William Porter）要求政府律师解释，为何在申请搜查记者汉娜·纳坦森（Hannah Natanson）住所时——作为国家安全调查的一部分——没有提及1980年限制记者住所搜查的法律。
如何能忽略它？如何能说它不适用？
波特在弗吉尼亚州亚历山大市联邦法院的听证会上问道。
最终批准搜查令的波特透露，他曾拒绝过搜查令的先前版本。
司法部律师的行为受到质疑
波特成为又一位在备受瞩目的案件中质疑特朗普政府时期司法部律师行为的法官。此前已有其他人士指控司法部存在法律失误和违抗法院命令的行为，司法部对此予以否认。
司法部律师戈登·克罗姆伯格（Gordon Kromberg）告诉波特，检察官认为1980年《隐私保护法》（Privacy Protection Act）不适用于记者参与潜在犯罪行为的调查情形。
联邦调查局上月搜查了纳坦森位于弗吉尼亚州的住所，并扣押了其手机和笔记本电脑，调查起因是一名政府承包商涉嫌向纳坦森泄露机密信息。《华盛顿邮报》曾表示，该报和纳坦森并非调查目标。
一个新闻自由组织已就克罗姆伯格提起道德投诉，指控其向法官隐瞒信息。波特告诉克罗姆伯格，他可能是对的——即该法律并未禁止此次搜查，但他发泄了对检察官未将该法律作为考虑因素之一的不满。
周五的听证会围绕《华盛顿邮报》和纳坦森对此次搜查的法律质疑，以及要求政府返还被扣押材料展开。他们的律师称，仅基于新闻采集活动对记者住所进行搜查在美国尚属首次。
波特已在诉讼过程中暂时阻止政府查阅扣押材料。
《华盛顿邮报》律师西蒙·拉特科维奇（Simon Latcovich）表示，此次突袭“冻结了纳坦森女士的新闻采集工作”，并可能暴露超过1000名政府机密消息来源。
司法部律师辩称，此次搜查是调查美国政府机密非法披露的必要环节。他们称，司法部计划安排一组未参与调查的联邦调查局探员（即所谓的“过滤小组”）审查被扣押材料，并分离出与调查无关的内容。
报道：安德鲁·古兹沃德（Andrew Goudsward）；编辑：安迪·沙利文（Andy Sullivan）、罗德·尼克尔斯（Rod Nickel）
我们的标准：路透社信托原则，[在新标签页打开]
US judge questions DOJ handling of Washington Post reporter search
February 20, 2026 10:17 PM UTC / Reuters
The Washington Post headquarters, in Washington, D.C., U.S., February 4, 2026. REUTERS/Aaron Schwartz [Purchase Licensing Rights, opens new tab]
- Summary
- Judge questions DOJ’s omission of 1980 privacy law
- Prosecutors say law did not apply in national security probe
- Washington Post seeking return of seized material
ALEXANDRIA, Virginia, Feb 20 (Reuters) – A U.S. judge on Friday sharply questioned Justice Department lawyers about their handling of a search of a Washington Post reporter’s home last month.
U.S. Magistrate Judge William Porter pressed government lawyers to explain why they did not mention a 1980 law restricting searches of journalists when they sought approval to search the home of reporter Hannah Natanson as part of a national security investigation.
Jumpstart your morning with the latest legal news delivered straight to your inbox from The Daily Docket newsletter. Sign up here.
Advertisement · Scroll to continue
“How could you miss it? How could you say it doesn’t apply?” Porter asked during a hearing in federal court in Alexandria, Virginia.
Porter, who ultimately approved the search, revealed that he had rejected prior versions of the proposed warrant.
DOJ LAWYERS’ CONDUCT IN QUESTION
Porter became the latest judge in a high-profile case to question the conduct of DOJ lawyers under President Donald Trump’s administration. Others have accused the Justice Department of making legal errors and defying court orders, claims the department has denied.
DOJ attorney Gordon Kromberg told Porter that prosecutors determined the 1980 law, known as the Privacy Protection Act, did not apply in situations in which the reporter was a participant in potential criminal conduct.
Advertisement · Scroll to continue
The FBI searched Natanson’s Virginia home and seized cellphones and laptops last month as part of an investigation into the alleged leak of classified information to Natanson by a government contractor. The Washington Post has said the paper and Natanson are not targets of the probe.
A press freedom group has filed an ethics complaint against Kromberg, accusing him of withholding information from the judge. Porter told Kromberg he may be correct that the law did not prohibit the search, but vented frustration that prosecutors had not referenced it as a factor to consider.
Friday’s hearing centered on the Post and Natanson’s legal challenge to the search and demand that the government return the seized materials. Their lawyers described the search of a reporter’s home based purely on newsgathering activity as unprecedented in the U.S.
Porter has temporarily blocked the government from searching the material while the challenge plays out.
Simon Latcovich, an attorney for the Post, said the raid “froze Ms. Natanson’s newsgathering” and risked exposing more than 1,000 confidential government sources.
Justice Department lawyers argued the search was a necessary part of an investigation into the unlawful disclosure of U.S. government secrets. They said the DOJ planned to have a group of FBI agents not involved in the investigation, known as a filter team, review the seized material and separate anything not relevant to the probe.
Reporting by Andrew Goudsward; editing by Andy Sullivan, Rod Nickel
Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles., opens new tab
节点运行失败
发表回复