A federal judge sharply criticised prosecutors during a court hearing examining the search of a Washington Post reporter’s home, questioning whether the government had adequately safeguarded constitutional protections for journalists.

The hearing focused on the circumstances under which federal agents obtained and executed a search warrant targeting the reporter’s residence.

Defence attorneys argued that the move risked infringing on press freedoms and could have a chilling effect on investigative reporting, particularly when sensitive sources are involved.

During proceedings, the judge pressed government lawyers on the legal thresholds applied and the steps taken to minimise intrusion into materials potentially protected by the First Amendment.

The court appeared particularly concerned with whether less intrusive measures had been considered before seeking judicial approval for the search.

Prosecutors maintained that the warrant was lawfully obtained and narrowly tailored to evidence relevant to an ongoing investigation.

They contended that the search complied with Department of Justice guidelines governing actions involving members of the media.

The case has drawn attention from press freedom advocates, who argue that searches of journalists’ homes represent an extraordinary step that must meet a high constitutional bar.

Legal experts note that federal policy generally requires additional scrutiny and senior-level approval before pursuing compulsory measures against reporters.

The judge did not immediately rule on the matter but indicated that further briefing may be required.

The outcome could shape how courts interpret the balance between investigative authority and press protections in cases involving alleged leaks or confidential materials.

As the proceedings continue, the case underscores the delicate tension between law enforcement objectives and the longstanding legal principles designed to protect the independence of the press.