The Justice Department withdrew the NYT reporter subpoenas it had issued in a leak investigation after US District Judge Arun Subramanian sharply questioned government lawyers in federal court, according to The New York Times and a court order filed Thursday.
The subpoenas targeted New York Times journalists who reported on security concerns involving a Boeing jet donated to President Trump by Qatar for use as Air Force One. The dispute put the Trump administration’s leak hunt directly against rules that make subpoenas to journalists a last resort, not the opening move.
In his order, Subramanian wrote that the government had voluntarily withdrawn the challenged subpoenas, including those sent to journalists and those sent to third parties. He said the subpoenas were “null and void” and that The Times’ motions to quash them were therefore moot.
What did the NYT reporter subpoenas seek?
The New York Times said the government sought grand jury testimony from its reporters and phone and text-message records tied to the journalists. In a later court filing, the paper said prosecutors had also served subpoenas on phone service providers on July 10, July 14 and July 16 for records associated with the reporters.
The Times reported that some of the phone-record demands swept in relatives as well, including one reporter’s mother and two reporters’ spouses. During the hearing, Sean Buckley, chief counsel for the US attorney’s office in the Southern District of New York, acknowledged that the inclusion of relatives was an error and attributed it to moving quickly, according to The Times.
A subpoena is a court-backed demand for testimony or records. A motion to quash asks a judge to void that demand, usually because the target argues it is unlawful, overbroad or improperly issued.
Judge questioned the government’s process
The New York Times reported that Subramanian questioned Justice Department lawyers for nearly an hour. According to the paper, the judge told Buckley that subpoenas to reporters come at the end of an investigation process, not the beginning, and framed the issue as compliance with legal requirements.
The Times also reported that the government acknowledged factual mistakes in its filings. Prosecutors conceded they had left out significant information, including that the matter involved journalists’ records, when asking another federal judge to stop a phone company from notifying a target of a records request, according to the paper.
The Times’ July 15 motion accused the government of trying to intimidate the press and said armed federal agents served subpoenas at the journalists’ homes, giving them three business days to appear before a grand jury. The motion alleged that FBI Director Kash Patel directed the activity from the White House in coordination with senior administration officials after Trump became angry about the reporting.
The Justice Department criticized Subramanian after the hearing. In a statement provided to Ars Technica, a DOJ spokesperson said the judge threatened sanctions unless the subpoenas were withdrawn and blocked the government from presenting what it called the investigation’s process. The department said the investigation remains ongoing and described leaks of classified information as a serious federal crime.
David McCraw, a newsroom lawyer for The Times, called the hearing an affirmation of press freedom and said the government had conceded the subpoenas violated the law. He added that they should not have been issued.
The reporting at issue concerned ethical, cost and national security questions raised by Trump’s acceptance of a $400 million Boeing jet from Qatar, according to The Times’ motion. The filing said the aircraft would need retrofitting to serve as a “flying White House” with communications, security and support systems.
The fight follows another Trump administration press-leak dispute. In January, the FBI seized devices from a Washington Post reporter who had contacts with 1,100 current and former government employees, according to Ars Technica. A judge later halted the FBI search and decided the court would conduct the review because the government had probable cause for only a small fraction of what it seized.
This story draws on original reporting from Ars Technica.
