Under the turbulent glare of national attention, a federal district judge on Thursday emphasized judicial fairness while promising to issue a restraining order against several members of the presidential cabinet over a group chat scandal involving the Signal messaging app.
Before addressing the core issues of the case, the judge sought to clarify concerns about his assignment, stressing that all cases are assigned randomly through an automated process. His recent rulings on government-related cases have attracted increased scrutiny, and he acknowledged the controversy while reaffirming the integrity of the court’s procedures.
The lawsuit at hand revolves around a multiple-day group chat concerning military strikes. The judge clarified that the plaintiff was not seeking disclosure of these Signal communications but rather addressing a claim under the Federal Records Act (FRA). This law imposes strict record-keeping requirements, intersecting with other transparency statutes such as the Freedom of Information Act.
According to the judge, the litigation presents an opportunity for both sides to find common ground. Based on government filings, he indicated that the administration appeared to be moving toward compliance with the plaintiffs’ requests.
The lawsuit, filed by a nonprofit government transparency organization, seeks declaratory judgments affirming that the participants violated federal law, that the messages in question fall under the FRA, and that failure to preserve them constituted a violation. Additionally, the plaintiffs request an injunction requiring compliance with federal law, as well as a potential investigation aimed at recovering any deleted or destroyed materials.
However, the judge suggested that full legal relief may not be necessary, emphasizing that the key issues are preservation and possible recovery. He encouraged the parties to reach a resolution that satisfies these concerns while avoiding prolonged litigation.
When asked what steps the government was taking, a Department of Justice attorney referenced official declarations indicating that relevant agencies were working to preserve available records. The government’s lawyer further stated that the agencies were actively assessing the extent of their records.
The judge pressed for clarity on how the government intended to handle the self-erasing nature of Signal messages. While the attorney refrained from providing detailed answers, she maintained that agencies were committed to fulfilling their legal obligations.
A more definitive response emerged when the judge asked if the government was willing to preserve the Signal chats from the specified dates. The government’s lawyer affirmed that preservation efforts were underway.
Both sides acknowledged that while preserving existing messages was feasible, recovering deleted ones posed greater challenges. The judge then questioned whether a formal restraining order detailing these obligations would be too burdensome. The government did not object.
The attorney representing the plaintiffs expressed general approval of the agreed-upon steps but raised concerns about other conversations referenced within the Signal chats. He also highlighted broader issues with the use of Signal for official communications, given the difficulties in maintaining proper records.
The judge acknowledged these concerns but guided the hearing toward areas of agreement aligned with the original complaint. He reiterated the government’s position that they could not maintain record-keeping practices in violation of the FRA.
In closing, the judge announced his intention to issue a temporary restraining order requiring the preservation of all Signal communications between March 11 and March 15. The order will last for 14 days initially, with the possibility of extension.
Before adjourning, the judge reassured the parties that the order would be clearly documented. By Monday, the involved parties must submit a status report and declaration detailing the steps taken to ensure compliance.
