US appeals court orders LinkedIn records demand narrowed

A unanimous three-judge US appeals panel ruled on 10 November that a district court must substantially narrow the government’s demand for journalists’ LinkedIn records. The panel rejected LinkedIn’s request to cancel the demand entirely.

The US Justice Department sought 18 months of communications records as part of an investigation into suspected leaks of top-secret military information. During that period, the targeted journalists collectively published more than 1,000 articles on varied subjects. The demand extended beyond journalists involved in the report at the center of the investigation, Ars Technica said.

Trump said the report exposed confidential military information in a foreign country. The demand extended beyond the journalists involved in that report. Ars Technica said it withheld the outlet’s name to protect national-security secrets.

Why the court required a narrower demand

Writing for the panel, Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III said many users covered by the demand had no conceivable connection to the leak investigation. They included people affiliated with media outlets, universities and law firms who might have been relevant to the journalists’ other stories.

Wilkinson said collecting reporters’ records wholesale to identify confidential sources would threaten informed public discourse. He also said the law left room for both national-security and free-speech interests.

The appeals court found that the district court had not adequately considered LinkedIn’s arguments about undue burden and its users’ rights under the First Amendment, which protects freedom of speech and the press. The lower court had reasoned that LinkedIn could feasibly produce the records and that the government’s interest would prevail regardless of how those concerns were weighed. Wilkinson said logistical feasibility alone was not enough to approve a request.

Secrecy order returns to district court

The government also obtained a secrecy order barring LinkedIn from telling anyone about the demand for 1 year. LinkedIn proposed an exception that would let it notify a single attorney for the news outlet under investigation.

The government argued that the attorney might be untrustworthy or tip off others, but Wilkinson rejected those arguments as presented. He said the government should have another opportunity to explain how notification would compromise the investigation; unless it offers a more persuasive explanation, the district court must allow the exception.

Microsoft, which owns LinkedIn, called the ruling important for privacy and press freedom. Its spokesperson said government demands for information should face meaningful judicial scrutiny balanced against First Amendment protections. The district court must now reassess how to narrow the records demand.