.jpeg) |
| (Richard Ray, FOX 4, Facebook) |
A Trump administration attempt to short-circuit the U.S. Constitution met an ignominious end yesterday as a federal judge grew impatient with Department of Justice lawyers who seemed to have a hard time explaining their questionable actions, and after some tense interplay, wound up forcefully telling them it might be 2026, but you still have to play by the provisions of First Amendment law. The judge's words drew cheers from free-press advocates and made it clear that Trump's efforts to chill The New York Times' reporting on a matter close to his heart were not going to end well.
In the midst of war in Iran; a string of fatal ICE shootings from Maine to Minnesota to Texas,; and an outbreak of a parasitic illness that causes "explosive diarrhea," how did it become one of the biggest days for the First Amendment in quite some time? Courthouse News Service has the story under the headline "Ripped by judge, DOJ drops subpoenas of New York Times reporters." The piece comes with this sub-header: "Justice Department lawyers initially refused to withdraw the requests, despite admitting they were rife with 'inadvertent errors.'” Erik Uebelacker writes:
The Department of Justice on Thursday agreed to withdraw grand jury subpoenas of a group of New York Times reporters who covered President Donald Trump’s new Qatari-donated Air Force One jet — only after a federal judge grilled the department for issuing them in the first place.
The Times was seeking to quash the subpoenas, claiming they were issued in bad faith to deter the journalists from continuing to produce reporting that enraged the president. The stories at issue cited anonymous sources and surrounded security concerns aboard Trump’s new plane that prevented him from using it during a recent trip to the Middle East.
At a Thursday hearing, U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian chided the government for hastily issuing the subpoenas that even the DOJ’s own attorneys acknowledged were rife with “inadvertent errors.”
“Subpoenas are the last step -- not the first step, but the last step,” the Joe Biden appointee said.
In other words, to remain within the framework of the First Amendment, the government must first try to get the information it seeks from sources other than journalists. But instead of following black-letter law, administration lawyers went straight to subpoenas, which can include invasive and intimidating measures, such as depositions of reporters and editors, copies of internal communications, even questioning of reporters' friends and family members. DOJ lawyers made an effort to explain why they "took the road that is not supposed to be taken." Their tack essentially was this: "We aren't trying to interfere with The Times' reporting; we are just trying to find the source of leaks about the president's new Qatari jet." In short, the government's exercise in press intimidation was driven by the fact Trump was pissed because he could not immediately play with his new toy.
To be fair, the DOJ's argument might have worked with some judges. It did not, however, work with Subramanian. Uebelacker writes:
The roughly 90-minute hearing got increasingly tense as Subramanian pressed Sean Buckley, chief counsel to the U.S. Attorney in the Southern District of New York, on the department’s apparent neglect of regulations set to protect First Amendment rights. He lambasted the government for not trying to secure the information it sought before rushing to send out the subpoenas.
“When you see something like this, if this were a civil proceeding, what I’d normally do is ask the parties to show cause why sanctions should not be issued or steps shouldn’t be taken with respect to the incorrect statements or misstatements,” Subramanian said.
He told Buckley that he effectively had two options: quash the subpoenas from the bench or allow Buckley to agree to withdraw them.
Those words should have sent an unmistakable message to Buckley: "Your argument is a loser." But the Trump lawyer, not surprisingly, must have a thick skull because it took a while for the words to register:
Buckley had initially sought to merely suspend the subpoenas as the department continued its investigation into the source of the information leaked to The Times. But after the dressing-down from Subramanian and a brief recess to consult with the newspaper’s counsel, he eventually agreed to withdraw them altogether.
Perhaps trying to make it clear that he meant business, Subramanian brought a new actor up to the stage, Uebelacker reports:
At one point, the judge called Assistant U.S. Attorney Kevin Sullivan, who was seated in the gallery, to the well to answer questions about additional subpoenas into the reporters’ phone records. According to Subramanian, Sullivan misled another judge about the publicity of the investigation when seeking a sign-off on those subpoenas.
“It was an oversight on the government’s part,” Sullivan said.
The department also admitted its subpoena of one of the journalist’s mothers and two of their spouses was unintentional. Of that, Buckley said “that is an error that we own.”
The judge seemed to enjoy making one of Todd Blanche's chief lieutenants look foolish:
“It seems like the inadvertent errors and ‘we should’ve done things differently’ are piling up,” Subramanian quipped.
Does all of this mean the party's over for Trump's DOJ on this particular issue? Not necessarily, Uebelacker writes:
While the DOJ agreed to pull the subpoenas, the department could potentially issue them again in the future if it fails to get the information it’s seeking in its investigation.
The government claims it’s targeting the source of the leaks to The Times reporters, not the reporters themselves, who revealed that the new Air Force One plane lacked antimissile and other defensive features.
A DOJ spokesperson railed against Subramanian in a statement following the hearing, claiming the judge “blocked us from presenting the meticulous process of this investigation.”
“The grand jury has a right to hear testimony from all material witnesses in a federal criminal investigation,” the spokesperson said. “This judge’s conduct overrides clear longstanding principles and common sense — blocking the grand jury from receiving core evidence in a national security investigation. Make no mistake, this investigation remains ongoing, and we will pursue justice against those threatening national security by leaking classified information, a serious federal crime.”
A senior official with The New York Times saw the ruling as a win for freedom of the press. Uebelacker reports:
David McGraw, senior vice president and deputy general counsel at The New York Times, said the court appearance was “an important affirmation of our country’s commitment to a free press.”
“We are pleased that the government finally conceded that the subpoenas violated the law, but they should never have been issued in the first place,” McGraw said in a statement. “The Times and our journalists will continue to report and seek the truth without fear or favor. We will not be deterred in the face of tactics like these."
That last sentence appears to be a not-so-subtle dig at Trump for consistently trying to chop away at rights that are enshrined in the First Amendment. This is a president who makes a habit of ignoring laws and constitutional rights with which he does not agree. Trump almost seems proud of the lawlessness that has come to pervade his administration, meaning he has earned the disdain that David McGraw expressed.
This hardly is the first time the White House has tried to wring information out of journalists. In fact, it almost has become a calling card of Trump loyalists. From the Courthouse News report:
The Trump administration has come under fire from critics and First Amendment activists over its persistent bids to get information from journalists about their reporting. DOJ officials recently withdrew similar subpoena requests from The Washington Post and The Wall Street Journal, compelling them to testify in front of a grand jury.
“The second Trump administration is being particularly aggressive when it comes to leak enforcement and, in particular, going after journalists to identify their confidential sources,” Gabe Rottam, vice president of policy at the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, told Courthouse News on Thursday.
Rottam added that he doubts this is the last time this DOJ tries to subpoena reporters for this information, but he hopes “the department’s track record in court would give them pause before they do this again.”
The administration has also faced heat for taking the luxury jet as a gift from Qatar last year. The administration announced in May 2025 that it was taking the $400 million Boeing 747-8 to be used as Air Force One, with plans to eventually transfer it to Trump’s presidential library.
No comments:
Post a Comment