A federal appeals court has ordered a judge to narrow the Justice Department’s demand for journalists’ LinkedIn records in a national-security leak investigation, rejecting a sweeping request that could expose sources unrelated to the probe.
The unanimous Fourth Circuit decision, issued November 10, sends the case back to a Virginia court. The judges did not block the government from seeking records altogether: they said investigators may pursue information relevant to the leak, but the lower court must examine whether the demand reaches too far and consider narrower alternatives.
The existing order covered 18 months of journalists’ LinkedIn metadata. During that period, the targeted journalists collectively published nearly 1,000 stories, and fewer than 5% appeared connected to the investigation, the appeals court said. The records could identify people who contacted the journalists, including confidential sources with no apparent link to the alleged leak. Earlier coverage of the sealed case said the demand involved six journalists and nearly 1,900 interactions.
The investigation began after an unidentified news outlet published an article about a top-secret U.S. military operation abroad. The outlet and the article remain unnamed in the public court record. The court recognized the government’s interest in protecting classified operations, but said national-security concerns do not automatically justify collecting every record that is easy to compile.
The appeals court also challenged a separate, yearlong secrecy order that barred LinkedIn from telling the journalists, their employer or others about the demand. It directed the lower court to reconsider LinkedIn’s proposal to share the order with one vetted lawyer for the news outlet, giving the government a chance to explain why that limited disclosure would threaten its investigation.
The ruling leaves the underlying leak inquiry open, but sets a practical boundary for investigators seeking journalists’ digital records: requests must be tied to the investigation, while courts weigh source confidentiality and free-speech interests. The next step is for the district court to redraw the orders.