Justice Department withdraws subpoenas for New York Times reporters after judge’s criticism
Select a version of the text written from a presumed ideological perspective. This is not the original text, but a hypothetical version — how someone with that viewpoint might have phrased it. Tapping the current version again will return to the original or select cleaned version.
U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian ordered the Justice Department to pull grand-jury subpoenas and phone-record requests targeting New York Times journalists in an Air Force One security investigation.
The Justice Department told a federal judge it will withdraw subpoenas seeking grand-jury testimony and telephone records from New York Times reporters after a Thursday hearing. The subpoenas were issued in connection with a story about security systems on the new Air Force One jet, which was donated by Qatar.
Judge Arun Subramanian questioned why the department had moved to issue subpoenas before exhausting other investigative steps and warned that sanctions could be considered for alleged perjury in the filing. Government attorneys acknowledged the subpoenas were obtained in error, and the judge entered an order declaring the subpoenas “null and void.”
"Make no mistake, this investigation remains ongoing, and we will pursue justice against those threatening national security by leaking classified information, a serious federal crime," a Justice Department spokesperson said.
"Today's proceeding was an important affirmation of our country's commitment to a free press. We are pleased that the government finally conceded that the subpoenas violated the law, but they should never have been issued in the first place," New York Times deputy general counsel David McCraw said.
The Times had previously moved to block the subpoenas, describing them as “abusive and improper.” The subpoenas sought not only reporters’ testimony but also phone-record data for journalists’ family members, including spouses and a mother, with some requests dating back to January 1, well before the newspaper published the relevant articles. The newspaper’s lawyers argued the timing suggested a broader effort to identify sources rather than address the specific reporting.
During the hearing, the judge halted enforcement of the subpoenas and indicated that he would quash them if the department did not withdraw them. After the department’s acknowledgment of the mistakes, it confirmed it would withdraw the subpoenas and would seek new court approval only if further subpoenas became necessary.
The case highlights ongoing tensions between national-security investigations and First Amendment protections for the press.