A federal judge in the United States has ruled that prosecutors cannot directly search electronic devices seized from a journalist during a national security investigation, directing that the court itself review the material instead.

The case involves reporter Hannah Natanson of The Washington Post, whose phone, laptops, storage drives, and wearable technology were confiscated by the Federal Bureau of Investigation in January as part of an inquiry into possible unauthorized disclosure of classified information.

Authorities have argued that the search was necessary to investigate the potential release of sensitive government data that could pose security risks. Prosecutors said filter teams composed of investigators not connected to the case could review the materials and separate protected information from evidence relevant to the probe.

In Tuesday’s decision, U.S. Magistrate Judge William Porter rejected the government’s request for an unrestricted search of all seized digital data. The court instead ordered a supervised judicial examination of the contents.

The ruling was grounded in concerns that allowing government investigators to review a reporter’s work files could expose confidential communications with sources who rely on privacy protections when sharing information with journalists.

Legal arguments from the United States Department of Justice maintained that investigative access was necessary to pursue individuals suspected of leaking highly classified material. Officials stressed that press freedom does not create immunity from lawful search warrants when national security is involved.

The judge compared unrestricted government review of newsroom data to allowing investigators whose interests may conflict with journalistic protection standards to control sensitive source information.

The court also ordered that materials outside the scope of the authorized warrant be returned to the reporter, although certain classified information may require additional review before the physical devices are released.

The case has renewed debate over digital journalism security and modern reporting practices, where communication, research files, and confidential contacts are often stored electronically. Experts say device seizures can significantly disrupt newsgathering operations.

The ruling references protections associated with the Privacy Protection Act of 1980, which limits government seizure of journalistic work materials when reporters are not targets of criminal activity.

Press freedom organizations praised the decision, saying it reinforces constitutional safeguards for source confidentiality. Some legal analysts believe the case could shape future standards governing law enforcement access to media data stored on digital platforms.

Government attorneys continue to maintain that national security interests justify limited investigative access. The court will now conduct a supervised examination of the seized materials to determine whether any evidence relevant to the leak investigation exists.

The dispute highlights the growing legal challenges surrounding journalism, digital privacy, and national security enforcement as reporting increasingly depends on electronic communication technologies.