The Trump administration’s fight to stop suspected leaks of top-secret military information on LinkedIn can’t sweep in “a vast number of confidential sources” of random journalists “who have no conceivable relationship” to the Department of Justice’s investigation, an appeals court ruled Tuesday.
The order came after the DOJ asked LinkedIn to turn over 18 months of communications from targeted journalists who collectively published more than 1,000 articles on many different topics over that time period. The request was not limited to journalists involved in a controversial report from a news outlet that Trump said exposed confidential military information in a foreign country. (The outlet is not being named to protect national security secrets.) Instead, the DOJ cast a wide net, requesting extensive LinkedIn data on journalists who had any possible link to the journalists around the time the report was drafted.
The majority of journalists have LinkedIn accounts and publish their contact information to encourage sources to connect on the platform, LinkedIn argued. So allowing that government overreach went beyond harming targeted journalists and threatened to undermine a critical platform where journalists frequently connect with confidential sources, judges ruled. Even more concerning, the Trump administration secured a secrecy order barring LinkedIn from telling anyone about the sweeping request for a year. That left journalists unaware for far too long that their First Amendment rights had been compromised, judges ruled.
Penning the unanimous opinion from a three-judge panel, Ronald Reagan-nominated judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III rejected LinkedIn’s request to quash the order entirely and ordered the US district court to substantially narrow the order to avoid posing a grave threat to press freedoms.
