Judge Cautions Justice Department Over Journalists’ Subpoenas

The Justice Department will no longer pursue subpoenas seeking testimony and phone records from New York Times journalists. This decision followed a challenging session on Thursday with U.S. District Court Judge Arun Subramanian, who questioned the government’s strategy.

The government began this action on July 10, after the Times published stories about the U.S. Secret Service preventing President Trump from using the new Air Force One jet in Turkey.

Judge Subramanian was vocal about the Trump administration infringing on journalists’ rights, citing lackluster legal groundwork by federal attorneys. He also threatened sanctions for misleading statements to the court.

The case underscores the Trump administration’s intense stance on restricting press freedoms and its expansive executive power claims. During the proceedings, Sean Buckley, deputy U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York, stated that they were investigating leaks of classified information to the Times.

Despite proposals to delay subpoena actions for two weeks, Judge Subramanian said seeking testimonies from journalists should be the last option. The judge was critical of the rapid move to issue subpoenas following Times’ publications.

Buckley defended that the subpoenas had approval from the attorney general, possibly Acting U.S. Attorney General Todd Blanche. Yet, Buckley made no certainty about the grounds for this approval, whether for national security or otherwise.

Judge Subramanian also reprimanded federal prosecutors for requesting phone records without journalists’ knowledge, despite prior public reports on the subpoenas. Prosecutors admitted errors in subpoenaing records belonging to journalists’ families.

Jimmy Patel, FBI Director, reportedly ordered the subpoenas, adding urgency to the situation.

The court session also found light moments. Katherine Marsh, spouse of Times reporter Julian E. Barnes, recounted their encounter with armed FBI agents as they watched a movie parodying rural crime-solving. Responding to this anecdote, the judge humorously noted the incongruity of the situation.

Following the proceedings, Marsh remarked that these subpoenas should have never been issued.