RICHMOND, Va. — A federal appeals court heard arguments Tuesday over whether the Justice Department can obtain about 1,900 LinkedIn interactions involving six users as part of a national security leak investigation. The records request, which remains largely sealed, targets information held by LinkedIn and has raised questions about how far prosecutors may go when seeking journalists’ digital contacts through a third-party company. A judge in the Eastern District of Virginia approved the request June 3 and barred LinkedIn from notifying the affected users. The order covers information that could reveal connections among people using the professional networking platform. It does not necessarily provide access to the content of their communications, which would generally require a search warrant. It remains unclear whether prosecutors have sought or obtained such a warrant in the investigation. During a 40-minute public session before the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, Justice Department national security attorney Joshua Ferrentino defended the government’s request. LinkedIn attorney Ari Holtzblatt argued that the company should be able to challenge portions of the order as overly broad and disclose limited information that could help investigators identify relevant evidence without exposing unrelated contacts. The judges pressed both sides on the competing interests. Judge Harvie Wilkinson said the government may have a legitimate need to identify sources of leaks that could endanger lives or disclose sensitive intelligence. But he also questioned whether a broad disclosure could expose confidential sources unrelated to the investigation and undermine journalists’ ability to promise anonymity. “If the confidentiality of its sources are going to be broadly compromised by an overbroad disclosure order,” Wilkinson asked, “doesn’t that compromise a reporter’s interest and the First Amendment interest?” Judge James Wynn separately challenged the Justice Department’s argument that companies have no authority to contest criminal investigative orders, even when they know the requested records include information that is irrelevant. “We need some kind of governing rule,” Wynn said. The case was filed Nov. 6, 2025, according to the limited public docket. LinkedIn appealed the district court’s ruling two days after it was issued. The appeals court held a sealed session after the public arguments, and many details of the investigation remain unavailable. Google, Apple, Meta and X, along with the American Civil Liberties Union and the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, filed briefs supporting LinkedIn’s position. Their involvement reflects broader concern among technology companies and civil liberties groups about secret orders that restrict notice and limit opportunities to challenge government demands for user data. The dispute comes amid increased scrutiny of federal leak investigations involving journalists. Attorney General Todd Blanche and FBI Director Kash Patel have said the department does not intend to prosecute reporters, while maintaining that journalists’ testimony and data may be pursued when investigators examine disclosures of national security information. Courts have criticized some recent efforts to obtain reporters’ records, emphasizing that such measures should be used only as a last resort and under procedures designed to protect press freedom. The case also echoes a previous sealed fight involving X and prosecutors seeking information from then-President Donald Trump’s account. That dispute produced contempt findings and fines before the company complied, and the Supreme Court later declined to hear its appeal. The 4th Circuit has not announced when it will rule on LinkedIn’s challenge.