A federal judge in Virginia has blocked the U.S. Department of Justice from conducting its own review of electronic devices seized from a Washington Post reporter, ruling instead that the court will carry out an independent examination of the materials.

The decision follows the FBI’s seizure last month of reporter Hannah Natanson’s phone, laptops, Garmin watch and portable hard drives as part of a criminal investigation into a government contractor who was later indicted for allegedly sharing classified information. The move drew sharp criticism from press freedom advocates and media organizations, who called it an alarming intrusion into newsroom operations.

In a written opinion issued Tuesday evening, U.S. Magistrate Judge William Porter rejected the government’s proposal to allow a DOJ “filter team” — a separate group of department lawyers — to screen Natanson’s devices for evidence relevant to the investigation.

Porter wrote that permitting the government to search a reporter’s work materials posed serious risks to press freedoms. He likened the proposal to “leaving the government’s fox in charge of the Washington Post’s henhouse,” emphasizing that most of the seized data likely contains unrelated information from confidential sources.

The judge said concerns about errors — whether through negligence, bias or differing interpretations — were heightened given the government’s institutional interests in the case.

Instead, Porter ordered that the court itself will conduct an independent judicial review of the seized materials. He also directed the government to return any information that falls outside the scope authorized by the search warrant.

However, the judge stopped short of immediately returning Natanson’s devices. The Washington Post had asked the court to give the property back and place any copies under seal, arguing that continued government control could violate First Amendment protections. Porter acknowledged the significant press freedom concerns but noted that the case involves top-secret national security information that may require additional safeguards before materials can be returned.

“No easy remedy exists here,” Porter wrote, observing that the seizure effectively cut Natanson off from confidential sources and the digital tools necessary for her reporting. He rejected the government’s suggestion that she could simply replace her devices and start over, calling that approach “unjust and unreasonable.”

The judge also expressed concern that federal prosecutors did not reference the Privacy Protection Act of 1980 in their search warrant application. The statute limits the government’s ability to seize journalists’ work product when the reporter is not suspected of committing a crime. Porter said the omission undermined the court’s confidence in the government’s disclosures.

The Justice Department has maintained that the search was lawful and necessary to investigate what officials described as a serious leak of highly sensitive information. In court filings, the department argued that the First Amendment does not provide journalists with immunity from valid search warrants and said internal review safeguards were in place to protect privileged materials.

Attorneys for the Post and Natanson countered that the seizure amounted to an unprecedented intrusion into a newsroom and could chill confidential sources across the government. They argued that allowing prosecutors to sift through a reporter’s files would endanger press independence.

Press freedom advocates praised the ruling. Gabe Rottman of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press said the court took the “constitutionally appropriate” step by assuming responsibility for reviewing the materials and ensuring that unrelated information would be returned.

The case now moves forward under the court’s supervision, with the judge overseeing the review process as tensions between national security concerns and press protections continue to unfold.