A federal magistrate judge in Virginia ruled late Monday that the Justice Department cannot search electronic devices seized from Washington Post reporter Hannah Natanson's home, opting instead for a court-supervised review to protect journalistic materials.

U.S. Magistrate Judge William Porter rejected prosecutors' request to use a government filter team to sift through the devices, stating it would be "the equivalent of leaving the government’s fox in charge of the Washington Post’s henhouse." He expressed concern that allowing such access could restrain First Amendment rights and chill reporting, particularly on stories critical of the administration.

The devices, a phone, two laptops, a recorder, a portable hard drive, and a Garmin smartwatch, were taken by FBI agents during a Jan. 14 search of Natanson's Alexandria home. The action stemmed from an investigation into Pentagon contractor Aurelio Luis Perez-Lugones, arrested Jan. 8 and charged with leaking classified information to Natanson.

The probe began after The Post published an Oct. 31 article co-written by Natanson containing details from a classified intelligence report. She contributed to at least four other stories using information from Perez-Lugones, who pleaded not guilty last month. Natanson, known among colleagues as the "federal government whisperer" for cultivating sources in the federal workforce, has covered President Donald Trump's overhaul of government agencies.

Porter, who approved the original search warrant, had previously scolded Justice Department lawyers for failing to disclose the Privacy Protection Act of 1980. The law limits government searches of journalists' work product unless the reporter is suspected of a crime—a threshold not met here, as Natanson is not under investigation. During a Feb. 20 hearing, he questioned prosecutors: "How could you miss it? How could you think it doesn’t apply?"

The Post had sought an immediate return of the devices, arguing the seizure violated legal safeguards for the press and spanned years of unrelated reporting, including confidential sources. Porter denied that motion but extended a temporary ban on review and mandated the government return non-responsive materials after his review.

Prosecutors maintained the need for access due to national security implications in the ongoing leak case, but the judge prioritized independent oversight. "The Court’s genuine hope is that this search was conducted ... to gather evidence of a crime in a single case, not to collect information about confidential sources," Porter wrote.

The ruling drew attention from press freedom advocates monitoring the Justice Department's approach to leak probes involving journalists.