The underlying reporting was that Trump flew home from Turkey on the old Air Force One as a security precaution, and that the gifted plane lacked the antimissile capabilities the old model had. The subpoenas came from Jay Clayton, the U.S. Attorney in Manhattan, and in some cases federal agents delivered them to reporters at home. Clayton has since been nominated to run the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, which tells you pretty much all you need to know about why reporting on this Trump pet project<\/a> wound up in court.<\/p>\n Naturally, the Times sought<\/a> to squash the subpoenas, calling them \u201cabusive and improper.\u201d<\/p>\n Enter U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, a Biden appointee. He did not need much convincing. Subramanian had already signaled that the paper raised \u201cprofound First Amendment\u201d issues in challenging the subpoenas. From the bench<\/a>, he framed it as elementary, \u201cIt\u2019s a matter of basic compliance with the law.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cSubpoenas are the last step, not the first step, but the last step,\u201d he said, before spending roughly 90 \u201cincreasingly tense\u201d (per Courthouse News Service<\/a>) minutes pressing Sean Buckley, chief counsel to the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, on why the department had blown past its own press regulations to get there. Subramanian offered two options: withdraw the subpoenas, or watch them get quashed.<\/p>\n Then it got worse for the government.<\/p>\n Subramanian called Assistant U.S. Attorney Kevin Sullivan up from the gallery to explain the separate subpoenas for the reporters\u2019 phone records. According to the judge, Sullivan had misled a different judge about how public the investigation already was in order to get them signed off. \u201cIt was an oversight on the government\u2019s part,\u201d Sullivan said.<\/p>\n The phone-record subpoenas swept in relatives as well. One number belonged to a reporter\u2019s mother, a mental-health professional with confidential client relationships. Two others belonged to reporters\u2019 spouses, one of whom is the general counsel of a major law firm. The government\u2019s explanation is that it believed those numbers belonged to the reporters. So a department running a national security leak investigation could not reliably determine whose phone was whose, and in the process pulled toll records on a lawyer whose entire job is privileged communication and a clinician whose entire job is confidential ones. Two of the subpoenas reached back to January 1, months before the reporting that supposedly prompted the investigation.<\/p>\n Buckley apologized for those. \u201cThat was an error, judge, which we own,\u201d he said. \u201cIt was a consequence of trying to move quickly.\u201d He characterized the government\u2019s missteps as inadvertent, and offered the line that will outlive this hearing: \u201cNo one was trying to pull a fast one.\u201d<\/p>\n Subramanian, by this point seemed testy. \u201cThese things are starting to pile up,\u201d he said. And then he went where judges go when the misstatements stop looking like accidents: \u201cWhen you see something like this, if this were a civil proceeding, what I would normally do is ask the parties to show causes why sanctions should not be issued.\u201d<\/p>\n The department\u2019s response to all this was to attack the judge. Subramanian, the DOJ said in a statement after the hearing, \u201cthreatened our attorneys with sanctions unless subpoenas were withdrawn, and blocked us from presenting the meticulous process of this investigation.\u201d<\/p>\n The statement kept going. \u201cThe grand jury has a right to hear testimony from all material witnesses in a federal criminal investigation. This judge\u2019s conduct overrides clear longstanding principles and common sense \u2014 blocking the grand jury from receiving core evidence in a national security investigation.\u201d And a closing promise: \u201cMake no mistake, this investigation remains ongoing, and we will pursue justice against those threatening national security by leaking classified information, a serious federal crime.\u201d<\/p>\n None of this is a surprise. Todd Blanche told us it was coming<\/a>, out loud, on the internet, warning that any witness with knowledge of a leak \u2014 reporters explicitly included \u2014 shouldn\u2019t be shocked to find a subpoena in their hands. And the department\u2019s documented allergy to candor in front of federal judges<\/a> is not a new development either. DOJ had already withdrawn similar subpoenas to the Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal.<\/p>\n But don\u2019t call it a comeback if these subpoenas rear their heads again. Gabe Rottman of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press doubts this is the last attempt, though he hopes the department\u2019s courtroom record gives it pause. Subramanian\u2019s written order at least requires that \u201cthe Government will come to the Court in advance of issuance\u201d if it decides to renew.<\/p>\n Kathryn Rubino is a Senior Editor at Above the Law, host of\u00a0The Jabot podcast<\/a>, and co-host of\u00a0Thinking Like A Lawyer<\/a>. AtL tipsters are the best, so please connect with her. Feel free to email\u00a0her<\/a>\u00a0with any tips, questions, or comments and follow her on Twitter\u00a0@Kathryn1<\/a>\u00a0or Bluesky\u00a0@Kathryn1<\/a><\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n The post DOJ To Judge: \u2018No One Was Trying To Pull A Fast One.\u2019 Judge: \u2018These Things Are Starting To Pile Up.\u2019<\/a> appeared first on Above the Law<\/a>.<\/p>\n <\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n The Justice Department walked into a Manhattan courtroom Thursday with grand jury subpoenas for New York Times reporters, and it walked out without them.<\/p>\n The subpoenas went to Julian Barnes, Eric Lipton, Tyler Pager, Eric Schmitt, and Adam Goldman over their reporting on security concerns surrounding the Qatari-donated Boeing 747 that Trump has been trying to use as Air Force One. Federal agents managed to serve three of them. They could not serve<\/a> Pager or Goldman.<\/p>\n The underlying reporting was that Trump flew home from Turkey on the old Air Force One as a security precaution, and that the gifted plane lacked the antimissile capabilities the old model had. The subpoenas came from Jay Clayton, the U.S. Attorney in Manhattan, and in some cases federal agents delivered them to reporters at home. Clayton has since been nominated to run the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, which tells you pretty much all you need to know about why reporting on this Trump pet project<\/a> wound up in court.<\/p>\n Naturally, the Times sought<\/a> to squash the subpoenas, calling them \u201cabusive and improper.\u201d<\/p>\n Enter U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, a Biden appointee. He did not need much convincing. Subramanian had already signaled that the paper raised \u201cprofound First Amendment\u201d issues in challenging the subpoenas. From the bench<\/a>, he framed it as elementary, \u201cIt\u2019s a matter of basic compliance with the law.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cSubpoenas are the last step, not the first step, but the last step,\u201d he said, before spending roughly 90 \u201cincreasingly tense\u201d (per Courthouse News Service<\/a>) minutes pressing Sean Buckley, chief counsel to the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, on why the department had blown past its own press regulations to get there. Subramanian offered two options: withdraw the subpoenas, or watch them get quashed.<\/p>\n Then it got worse for the government.<\/p>\n Subramanian called Assistant U.S. Attorney Kevin Sullivan up from the gallery to explain the separate subpoenas for the reporters\u2019 phone records. According to the judge, Sullivan had misled a different judge about how public the investigation already was in order to get them signed off. \u201cIt was an oversight on the government\u2019s part,\u201d Sullivan said.<\/p>\n The phone-record subpoenas swept in relatives as well. One number belonged to a reporter\u2019s mother, a mental-health professional with confidential client relationships. Two others belonged to reporters\u2019 spouses, one of whom is the general counsel of a major law firm. The government\u2019s explanation is that it believed those numbers belonged to the reporters. So a department running a national security leak investigation could not reliably determine whose phone was whose, and in the process pulled toll records on a lawyer whose entire job is privileged communication and a clinician whose entire job is confidential ones. Two of the subpoenas reached back to January 1, months before the reporting that supposedly prompted the investigation.<\/p>\n Buckley apologized for those. \u201cThat was an error, judge, which we own,\u201d he said. \u201cIt was a consequence of trying to move quickly.\u201d He characterized the government\u2019s missteps as inadvertent, and offered the line that will outlive this hearing: \u201cNo one was trying to pull a fast one.\u201d<\/p>\n Subramanian, by this point seemed testy. \u201cThese things are starting to pile up,\u201d he said. And then he went where judges go when the misstatements stop looking like accidents: \u201cWhen you see something like this, if this were a civil proceeding, what I would normally do is ask the parties to show causes why sanctions should not be issued.\u201d<\/p>\n The department\u2019s response to all this was to attack the judge. Subramanian, the DOJ said in a statement after the hearing, \u201cthreatened our attorneys with sanctions unless subpoenas were withdrawn, and blocked us from presenting the meticulous process of this investigation.\u201d<\/p>\n The statement kept going. \u201cThe grand jury has a right to hear testimony from all material witnesses in a federal criminal investigation. This judge\u2019s conduct overrides clear longstanding principles and common sense \u2014 blocking the grand jury from receiving core evidence in a national security investigation.\u201d And a closing promise: \u201cMake no mistake, this investigation remains ongoing, and we will pursue justice against those threatening national security by leaking classified information, a serious federal crime.\u201d<\/p>\n None of this is a surprise. Todd Blanche told us it was coming<\/a>, out loud, on the internet, warning that any witness with knowledge of a leak \u2014 reporters explicitly included \u2014 shouldn\u2019t be shocked to find a subpoena in their hands. And the department\u2019s documented allergy to candor in front of federal judges<\/a> is not a new development either. DOJ had already withdrawn similar subpoenas to the Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal.<\/p>\n But don\u2019t call it a comeback if these subpoenas rear their heads again. Gabe Rottman of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press doubts this is the last attempt, though he hopes the department\u2019s courtroom record gives it pause. Subramanian\u2019s written order at least requires that \u201cthe Government will come to the Court in advance of issuance\u201d if it decides to renew.<\/p>\n The Justice Department walked into a Manhattan courtroom Thursday with grand jury subpoenas for New York Times reporters, and it walked out without them. The subpoenas went to Julian Barnes, Eric Lipton, Tyler Pager, Eric Schmitt, and Adam Goldman over their reporting on security concerns surrounding the Qatari-donated Boeing 747 that Trump has been trying […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":158089,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_et_pb_use_builder":"","_et_pb_old_content":"","_et_gb_content_width":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[16],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-158116","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-above_the_law"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/xira.com\/p\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/07\/IMG_5243-1-scaled-e1623338814705-620x568-x9ykQJ.jpg?fit=620%2C568&ssl=1","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/158116","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=158116"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/158116\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/158089"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=158116"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=158116"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=158116"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/abovethelaw.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/4\/2021\/06\/IMG_5243-1-scaled-e1623338814705-620x568.jpg?resize=174%2C160&ssl=1\" "\\"\\"")
<\/p>\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/abovethelaw.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/4\/2019\/06\/New-York-Times-NYT-by-David-Lat-300x225.jpg?resize=300%2C225&ssl=1\" "\\"\\"")
\nKathryn Rubino is a Senior Editor at Above the Law, host of\u00a0The Jabot podcast<\/a>, and co-host of\u00a0Thinking Like A Lawyer<\/a>. AtL tipsters are the best, so please connect with her. Feel free to email\u00a0her<\/a>\u00a0with any tips, questions, or comments and follow her on Twitter\u00a0@Kathryn1<\/a>\u00a0or Bluesky\u00a0@Kathryn1<\/a><\/em><\/strong><\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"