Journalist Under Prosecution Sues US Government For Seizing Materials

Journalist Tim Burke sued the United States government for allegedly violating the Privacy Protection Act (PPA) when the Justice Department obtained search warrants against him. 

The complaint against the government was filed on September 22, around a week after prosecutors notified the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida that it would seek a fresh indictment against Burke. 

Burke also submitted a motion on the same date, which alleged that the government had violated his Sixth Amendment right to due process. They asked the court to dismiss the charges with prejudice.

In February 2024, Burke was charged with conspiracy to defraud the U.S. government and with violations of the Wiretap Act and Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA). Prosecutors depicted the Florida-based journalist as an economic cybercriminal.

The prosecution was a response to Fox News, which claimed in 2023 that the network was “hacked, and that was how the news media obtained unaired antisemitic rants from an interview that Tucker Carlson recorded with rapper Kanye West.

FBI agents raided Burke’s home newsroom, and the National Basketball Association further alleged that Burke used “compromised credentials” to access NBA video streams.

However, prosecutors never alleged that Burke had “hacked” into any databases or servers or committed a “computer intrusion.” What they alleged was that he had “scoured” the internet for “electronic items and information” that were “deemed desirable” for news reporting.

Burke’s defense, along with a coalition of news associations and press freedom organizations, challenged the constitutionality of the Wiretap Act charges. On September 25, 2025, U.S. District Judge Kathryn Mizelle dismissed these particular charges and acknowledged “significant First Amendment concerns.”  

The government filed a notice of “interlocutory appeal” on October 27, 2025. Then on September 14, prosecutors informed the court that the DOJ would seek new charges.

As Burke’s defense recalled, “For the next 322 days, Mr. Burke's prosecution was frozen. In that time, the government filed no brief, obtained five extensions, and finally walked away—dismissing an appeal it had never been authorized to bring.”

Both the Privacy Protection Act lawsuit and the request for dismissal of charges are driven by the fact that the government continues to possess “First Amendment-protected materials” from decades of Burke’s “journalistic work.”

Michael Maddux, attorney for Burke, maintained that under the PPA the government may not “take custody of a journalist’s work product and documentary materials in the first place—not even with a valid warrant, absent narrow exceptions that do not apply here.” He additionally argued that the retention of these materials is part of the “actual and ongoing” prejudice against Burke. 

The PPA lawsuit emphasizes that the government knew Burke was a journalist and a “person who gathered and disseminated information to the public and that he possessed a journalistic archive of work product materials and documentary materials.” 

It mentions that the DOJ “obtained a warrant and court order” on May 5, 2023, that directed Google to provide the contents of Burke’s Google account, “including emails, Google Drive files, and other records constituting work product materials and documentary materials.”

Similarly, the lawsuit contends the government “obtained a warrant and court order” for Burke’s Twitter/X account that included his private direct messages “with sources and journalists, constituting product materials and documentary materials. Twitter/X personnel who searched for and produced those contents acted as agents” of the government.

The FBI raid involved the seizure of “notebooks, notepads, and other documents” that “included information concerning time sensitive investigations and the identity of Burke’s sources of information.” 

Caitlin Vogus, a senior adviser at the Freedom of the Press Foundation, wrote, “Because the search warrant applications were initially sealed (which is common), Burke had no opportunity to challenge their scope before the government combed through his accounts. He also had no way to know his accounts had been searched until the search warrants were unsealed in May 2024.”

“The Privacy Protection Act was enacted to prevent exactly this kind of situation,” Vogus continued. “In most circumstances, the PPA requires the government to use a subpoena rather than a search warrant when it wants a journalist’s work materials. A subpoena gives the journalist an opportunity to go to court and challenge the request before the government obtains the materials.”

Yet the government seems to increasingly believe it does not have to abide by the PPA. In the Espionage Act case against Aurelio Perez Lugones, prosecutors did not mention the PPA when applying for a search warrant to raid Washington Post reporter Hannah Natanson’s home. 

This also happened in the cases against journalists Don Lemon and Georgia Fort, when prosecutors sought search warrants for their YouTube channels. Eventually, the DOJ withdrew the applications because Magistrate Judge John Docherty still had concerns related to the PPA and other regulations. 

With prosecutors seeking a new indictment against Burke, that is even more reason to take the seizure of Burke’s materials seriously. The government is basically free to comb through the materials to fabricate further charges against a journalist—all to save face because they improperly brought Wiretap Act offenses and a court dismissed them. 

Burke’s trial has been postponed multiple times. At the time of publication, it is scheduled for December. But the government’s actions practically ensure that a new phase of pretrial deliberation will unfold and once again delay proceedings unless a court puts a stop to this abuse of process.