The request was firmly rejected. A federal judge delivered a significant setback to New York Attorney General Letitia James, denying her demand for a complete accounting of communications between federal prosecutors and the press.
The dispute centers around encrypted messages exchanged between US Attorney Lindsey Halligan and Anna Bower, a reporter with Lawfare. These weren’t routine background conversations; Halligan directly challenged a report Bower was preparing, initiating a private exchange that raised questions about appropriate conduct.
On a Saturday in October, Bower received an unexpected message: “Anna, Lindsey Halligan here.” It marked the beginning of a direct intervention by the lead prosecutor into a developing news story, a move that quickly drew scrutiny.
James argued that the Justice Department should be compelled to maintain a detailed log of all interactions with the media, fearing potential bias in coverage of her ongoing legal battles. Her legal team presented the Halligan-Bower exchange as evidence of a pattern of influence attempts.
However, Judge Jamar Walker, appointed by President Biden, wasn’t convinced. In a six-page ruling, he stated James failed to demonstrate a genuine *need* for the court to impose such a sweeping requirement on the DOJ.
The judge acknowledged the Halligan-Bower communication was “unusual,” but carefully avoided any judgment on its legality or ethical implications. He stopped short of condemning the exchange, but also refused to broaden oversight based on this single instance.
Defense attorney Abbe Lowell, representing James, had filed the motion following the Attorney General’s arraignment on charges of bank fraud and false statements. The timing underscored the high stakes and the intense pressure surrounding the case.
Ultimately, Walker’s decision represents a victory for the Justice Department and a significant hurdle for James. The court effectively sided with the principle of a free press, resisting calls for increased government monitoring of journalistic activity.
The denial doesn’t resolve the underlying concerns about potential overreach or improper influence. It simply reinforces the legal standard: demonstrating necessity is paramount when seeking to restrict government operations or compel extensive record-keeping.
