Nov 11, 2026 | Jon Palmer, Corporate Vice President and Chief Legal Officer, Microsoft

The free press in America depends on the ability of journalists to protect confidential sources. On November 10, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit underscored that principle. The court placed limits on secret government demands for journalists’ online data, and upheld the rights Microsoft and LinkedIn went to court to defend. LinkedIn, a Microsoft subsidiary, challenged two government orders: one, seeking journalists’ online data, and another that prevented the company from informing the journalists or their news organizations of the demand.

The opinion, authored by Judge Harvie Wilkinson III, opens with the statement that “[i]t is part of the audacity of the American project to believe that collective security can coexist with individual freedom.” Writing that “[c]onfidentiality of sources is the lifeblood of a free press,” the court remanded the case to the district court to consider narrowing both the scope of the government’s demand for information and the restrictions on LinkedIn’s ability to disclose the demand.

In a world where journalists routinely use digital platforms to identify sources, communicate privately, and gather information, this case provides key legal guidance. Overbroad requests for online data can expose confidential sources, including individuals who may have no connection to the investigation itself.

As a technology provider, we believe we have an important responsibility both to follow the law and to protect the people and organizations that rely on our services. When users are unaware that the government is seeking their information, technology providers are the last line of defense. They alone are in a position to challenge overly broad demands and ensure users’ rights are protected. We were proud to be supported in this case by amicus briefs filed by the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, the American Civil Liberties Union, and other technology providers including Amazon, Apple, Google, Meta, and X.

Microsoft has a long history of standing up for these protections across administrations led by both political parties. Our position has remained consistent: government demands should be appropriately tailored, secrecy is the exception, not the rule, and customers should receive notice unless the government demonstrates a specific need for nondisclosure. For well over a decade, we have challenged unnecessary secrecy orders, pressed for changes to Justice Department practices, and advocated for stronger legal safeguards regarding government access to customer data.

We recognize the government’s legitimate responsibility to investigate crime and threats to national security. As the Court here recognized, those investigations must be conducted within appropriate legal limits and must still protect privacy and First Amendment rights. This ruling reinforces that balance, concluding with the statement: “Serious security and speech claims are in tension in this case. There is space under law for both.”

Now Congress should finish the job.

As Brad Smith, Microsoft’s Vice Chair and President, argued in calling for Congressional reform of nondisclosure orders. Favorable court decisions and changes in government policy are important, but they are no substitute for durable legal protections.

Congress should strengthen the laws governing nondisclosure orders by ensuring that secrecy is appropriately limited, justified by specific circumstances, and subject to meaningful judicial review. These reforms would help protect the privacy of individuals and organizations while preserving the government’s ability to investigate crime.

The Fourth Circuit’s decision is an important reminder that privacy, press freedom, and public safety need not be competing interests. Our laws should protect all three. Microsoft and its subsidiaries will continue to stand up for these principles and the rights of the people and organizations that rely on our services.