NYT phone records subpoenas withdrawn after judge questions DOJ
The Justice Department dropped demands for New York Times reporters’ phone records and testimony after a federal judge questioned its legal basis.
By James Whitfield · Staff Writer
3 min read
The Justice Department withdrew NYT phone records subpoenas and grand jury demands targeting New York Times journalists after a federal judge questioned government lawyers over how the requests were handled. The demands sought information tied to reporters who covered security concerns about an Air Force One jet donated to President Trump by Qatar.
U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian said in a court order that the government had voluntarily withdrawn the challenged subpoenas, including those issued to the journalists and to third parties. Subramanian wrote that the subpoenas were “null and void” and that motions to quash them were moot.
Why did DOJ seek New York Times reporters' phone records?
The New York Times reported that the subpoenas were part of a federal investigation connected to reporting on the Qatar-donated Boeing jet and possible national security issues. A Justice Department spokesperson described the matter as an ongoing national security investigation involving leaks of classified information.
In court filings, the Times said its reporting addressed public concerns after Trump accepted the aircraft, including ethics questions, taxpayer costs for converting the plane for presidential use, and whether a foreign-donated aircraft could safely serve as a “flying White House.” The newspaper argued that the reporting concerned the executive branch, foreign dealings and the safety of an aircraft used by the president and others.
What did the judge say about the subpoenas?
The Times reported that Subramanian pressed Justice Department lawyers for nearly an hour during a Thursday hearing. According to the Times, the judge told Sean Buckley, chief counsel for the U.S. attorney in the Southern District of New York, that the court could either quash the subpoenas or the government could withdraw them.
Subramanian also said subpoenas to reporters should be used only as a last step, the Times reported. During the hearing, government lawyers agreed to pull the demands.
The newspaper had asked the court on July 15 to quash subpoenas requiring reporters to appear before a federal grand jury. Its motion said armed federal agents served subpoenas at journalists’ homes and ordered appearances within three business days.
The Times later told the court that the government had also subpoenaed phone providers for call records. According to a July 18 filing, those third-party subpoenas were served on July 10, July 14 and July 16 for records associated with the journalists.
The Times reported that the government acknowledged mistakes during the hearing, including that it had not told another federal judge key information when seeking to stop a phone company from disclosing a records request. The paper also reported that Buckley said subpoenas covering relatives of reporters, including one reporter’s mother and two reporters’ spouses, were an error caused by moving quickly.
The Justice Department criticized Subramanian after the hearing. A DOJ spokesperson said the judge threatened sanctions unless the subpoenas were withdrawn and blocked prosecutors from presenting what the department called the investigation’s process.
David McCraw, a lawyer for the Times newsroom, said the hearing affirmed the country’s commitment to a free press. He said the government had conceded the subpoenas violated the law and added that they should not have been issued.
This story draws on original reporting from Ars Technica.