LinkedIn DMs ruling: court limits DOJ bid to see journalists' chats

Why did the court limit the LinkedIn request?

LinkedIn argued that most journalists keep accounts there and publish their contact details so sources can reach them. Handing over everything would expose far more than one investigation needed. Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III, writing for a unanimous three-judge panel, agreed. Many of the users identified, he wrote, are tied to media outlets, universities and law firms that may have mattered to other stories, not the leak.

The lower court had reasoned that the request was no burden because LinkedIn could technically comply. That was an error, Wilkinson said. Records aren't fair game just because they are easy to compile. He added that security and speech claims are in tension here, but "there is space under law for both."

The court did not quash the order entirely. It sent the case back to the district court to narrow it substantially.

What about the secrecy order?

The government also obtained an order barring LinkedIn from telling anyone about the request for a year, so journalists didn't know their rights had been affected. LinkedIn had proposed a small exception: tell one attorney for the news outlet under investigation. The administration said that lawyer might not be trustworthy or could tip others off. Wilkinson said the government must explain how that would compromise its case, and unless it does better, LinkedIn's exception "must be adopted."

LinkedIn is owned by Microsoft, which called the decision important for privacy and press freedom. Bruce D. Brown of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press said the court recognized confidential sources as the "lifeblood" of investigative reporting.