ISTANBUL

A federal judge in the US has blocked the Justice Department from searching electronic devices seized from a Washington Post reporter, ordering the court to conduct the review itself as part of a national security investigation, the Guardian reported.

Magistrate Judge William Porter issued the ruling Tuesday, finding that an unrestrained search could violate the First Amendment rights of reporter Hannah Natanson. "The court will conduct the review itself," Porter wrote.

FBI agents raided Natanson's home on Jan. 14 as part of an investigation into a government contractor accused of illegally retaining classified materials. Agents seized her phone, two laptops, a recorder, a portable hard drive, and a Garmin watch.

Natanson has reported that federal employees laid off during the Trump administration's cost-cutting efforts led by Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency developed nearly 1,200 confidential sources across 120 government agencies.

After the raid, the Post asked the court to order the devices returned. Porter directed the government not to search the devices until after a hearing.

In Tuesday's ruling, Porter criticized the Justice Department for failing to include or analyze the Privacy Protection Act of 1980—a federal law protecting work-related materials of journalists from government search. "This omission has seriously undermined the court's confidence in the government's disclosures in this proceeding," he wrote.

Porter acknowledged that the possibility of classified material among the seized items complicated the matter but stated: "An appropriate search process must account for the need to identify and protect classified information before any materials are returned. But that does not mean that in all cases the government gets to conduct that search."

At a hearing Friday, Porter said Natanson "has basically been deprived of her life's work" by the seizure.

The Washington Post called the ruling a "victory," saying allowing the government to search the devices "would risk the identities of her sources and could have a chilling effect on future sources who wish to speak to reporters."

The Post had previously described the January raid as "highly unusual and aggressive."