2026年2月24日 / 美国东部时间晚上7:51 / CBS新闻
一名联邦法官阻止了美国司法部（DOJ）对《华盛顿邮报》一名记者电子设备的搜查，此前这些设备已于上月被联邦调查局（FBI）扣押。法院裁定，由法庭自行进行搜查。
作为对一名政府承包商的调查的一部分，FBI扣押了记者汉娜·纳坦森（Hannah Natanson）的手机、笔记本电脑、佳明（Garmin）手表和便携式硬盘。该承包商后来因涉嫌传播机密材料被起诉。这一行动极为罕见，引发了新闻机构的强烈批评和担忧。司法部长帕姆·邦迪（Pam Bondi）表示，此举旨在抓获”非法泄密者”，这些泄密行为”对我国国家安全构成严重风险”。
《华盛顿邮报》已请求法院归还纳坦森的财物，并将任何副本封存，理由是搜查可能侵犯她的第一修正案权利。与此同时，政府辩称，过滤小组或司法部律师团队可以检查纳坦森的设备，找出与政府调查相关的信息。
但周二晚间，弗吉尼亚州美国治安法官威廉·波特（William Porter）法官驳回了政府进行搜查的请求，决定由法庭”对扣押的材料进行独立司法审查”。
波特写道：”允许政府的过滤小组搜查记者的工作成果——其中大部分是来自机密消息源的无关信息——就等于让政府的’狐狸’看守《华盛顿邮报》的’鸡舍’。”
他继续说道：”当过滤小组的机构利益与其所面临的新闻自由价值观直接冲突时，其因疏忽、恶意或诚实的意见分歧而犯错的风险会加剧。”
波特表示，政府必须将所有”超出搜查令授权范围的有限信息”归还给纳坦森。
然而，波特驳回了《华盛顿邮报》提出的将纳坦森的设备归还给她和公司的动议。法官表示，他”认真对待…本案涉及最高机密国家安全信息”，在将纳坦森的材料归还之前，可能需要保护机密信息。
“这里没有简单的补救办法，”治安法官写道，指出FBI对纳坦森的搜查导致”终止了她获取其培养的机密消息源以及作为职业记者所需的所有工具的途径”。
“政府提出的补救办法——她只需购买新手机和笔记本电脑，开设新账户，从头开始——是不公平且不合理的，”波特补充道。”法院真诚希望此次搜查是为了在单一案件中收集犯罪证据，而非针对发表批评政府文章的记者收集其机密消息源信息。”
波特还批评政府在搜查令申请中未提及1980年《隐私保护法》（Privacy Protection Act），该法限制政府在未调查记者犯罪行为时扣押其工作成果。
治安法官表示，政府的遗漏”严重损害了法院对政府在此诉讼中披露信息的信心”。
波特的裁决是在代表《华盛顿邮报》和纳坦森的律师与司法部在法庭上展开辩论四天后作出的。
《华盛顿邮报》和纳坦森辩称，扣押记者的设备可能会削弱她的工作能力，并危及她的机密消息源，从而违反第一修正案对新闻自由的保护。
代表《华盛顿邮报》的威廉姆斯·康诺利律师事务所律师西蒙·拉科夫维奇（Simon Latcovich）周五表示，”政府在搜查纳坦森位于弗吉尼亚州的住所时，实际上是’占领了整个新闻编辑室’”。
他后来补充道：”这不仅关乎一名记者或一个新闻编辑室，而是关乎所有机密政府消息源。”
司法部辩称，对纳坦森住所的搜查是合法的，是调查严重泄露高度敏感信息的必要措施。在法庭文件中，司法部表示第一修正案并非”记者免受搜查令约束的例外”。
司法部还称，其已建立适当系统审查纳坦森的设备，并区分特权材料。
为记者提供资源的非营利法律组织”新闻记者自由委员会”（Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press）政策副总裁加布·罗特曼（Gabe Rottman）周二表示，法院”做出了正确且符合宪法的决定，即由法院自行审查材料，并下令将与调查无关的信息归还给纳坦森”。
Judge blocks DOJ from searching Washington Post reporter’s phone and laptop
February 24, 2026 / 7:51 PM EST / CBS News
A federal judge has blocked the Justice Department from searching through a Washington Post reporter’s electronic devices after they were seized by the FBI last month, instead ruling that the court would conduct a search.
The FBI seized reporter Hannah Natanson’s phone, laptops, Garmin watch, and portable hard drives as part of an investigation into a government contractor who was later indicted for allegedly disseminating classified material. The move was highly unusual, and drew steep criticism and alarm from press groups. Attorney General Pam Bondi said it was aimed at catching a perpetrator of “illegal leaks” that “pose a grave risk to our Nation’s national security.”
The Post had asked the court to return Natanson’s property and put any copies under seal, arguing a search could violate her First Amendment rights. The government, meanwhile, has argued that filter teams, or separate groups of Justice Department lawyers, could go through Natanson’s devices and find any information relevant to the government’s investigation.
But in a Tuesday night opinion, U.S. Magistrate Judge William Porter of Virginia rejected the government’s push to conduct a search, instead deciding that the court “will conduct an independent judicial review of the seized materials.”
Porter wrote that “allowing the government’s filter team to search a reporter’s work product — most of which consists of unrelated information from confidential sources — is the equivalent of leaving the government’s fox in charge of the Washington Post’s henhouse.”
He continued: “The concern that a filter team may err by neglect, by malice, or by honest difference of opinion is heightened where its institutional interests are so directly at odds with the press freedom values at stake.”
Porter said the government must return to Natanson all materials “outside the limited information authorized by the search warrant.”
However, Porter denied a motion from The Washington Post that sought to return Natanson’s devices to her and the company. The judge said he “takes seriously … that this case involves top secret national security information,” and that classified information may need to be protected before Natanson’s materials are returned to her.
“No easy remedy exists here,” the magistrate judge wrote, noting that the FBI’s search of Natanson had the effect of “terminating her access to the confidential sources she developed and to all the tools she needs as a working journalist.”
“The government’s proposed remedy—that she simply buy a new phone and laptop, set up new accounts, and start from scratch—is unjust and unreasonable,” Porter added. “The Court’s genuine hope is that this search was conducted—as the government contends—to gather evidence of a crime in a single case, not to collect information about confidential sources from a reporter who has published articles critical of the administration.”
Porter also criticized the government for failing to mention a federal privacy law surrounding seizure of reporters’ materials, the Privacy Protection Act of 1980, in its search warrant application. That law restricts the government’s ability to seize reporters’ work product when they aren’t the ones being investigated for a crime.
The magistrate said the government’s omission “has seriously undermined the Court’s confidence in the government’s disclosures in this proceeding.”
Porter’s decision came four days after attorneys representing the Post and Natanson squared off against the Justice Department in court.
The Post and Natanson have argued the seizure of the reporter’s devices could violate the First Amendment’s press freedom protections by making it difficult for her to do her job and endangering her confidential sources.
Simon Latcovich, an attorney from Williams and Connolly representing the Post, said Friday that “the Government here seized the newsroom” during its search of Natanson’s Virginia home.
“It’s not about one reporter or one newsroom, it’s about all confidential government sources,” he later added.
The Justice Department has argued that the search executed at her home was legal and warranted to investigate a serious leak of highly sensitive information, writing in a court filing that the First Amendment isn’t “a journalist’s exception to search warrants.”
The department has also argued that it had proper systems in place to review Natanson’s devices and separate out privileged materials.
Gabe Rottman, vice president of policy at the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, a nonprofit legal group that provides resources to reporters, said Tuesday that the court made the “right call – and the constitutionally appropriate one – by taking it upon itself to review the material and in ordering that information unrelated to the underlying investigation will be returned to Natanson.”