总统 Donald Trump 针对 The New York Times 发出的传票，因可能违反第一修正案而受到广泛批评，以至于试图就涉及特朗普“卡塔尔赠机”问题的报道来源施压的检方律师，甚至被威胁可能失去律师执照。围绕这起案件的争议，也已成为司法部在试图强制获取机密报道材料时能走多远的考验，尤其是在涉及一家大型报纸以及已被确认的记者特权框架的情况下。如今，一份最新报道显示，负责审理该案的法官严厉斥责了一名试图为这些传票辩护的检察官。

Lawfare 的 Anna Bower 周二报道称，"The Times swiftly moved to quash the subpoenas, arguing that they were issued in a bad faith effort to harass and intimidate the journalists," 。"What’s more, the newspaper contended that the government hadn't come close to meeting the standard set out in New York Times v. Gonzales, the Second Circuit precedent establishing that prosecutors seeking a reporter's confidential sources must show, among other things, that the information can't be obtained by other means."

Bower 补充说，"The Justice Department, in response, didn't ask the court to deny the motion outright. Instead, it asked the court to hold the subpoenas in abeyance for two weeks while it pursued additional investigative steps—steps that, the government suggested, might bear on the scope of the subpoenas and on whether the Gonzales factors could ultimately be satisfied."

随后她介绍了 Arun Subramanian 法官，称其因政府未能达到 Gonzales 标准而严厉批评了政府。

"Given that the government has asked to hold the subpoenas in abeyance while it pursues further investigative steps, is the government willing to just withdraw them?" Bower 询问纽约南区联邦检察官 Sean Buckley。

但 Buckley 表示，政府认为“appropriate measure”是暂缓这些传票，同时开展未具体说明的进一步调查步骤。换言之，政府希望暂停执行传票，而不是彻底撤回。

据报道，Subramanian 随即插话道："[Let me] stop you right there. So the answer to my question is 'no'?" 在与 Buckley 一番来回交锋后，政府承认自己无法达到该标准。

Subramanian 随后引用了司法部自己的文件，其中写道，要突破 Gonzales 所确认的有限记者特权，政府必须证明其所寻求的信息无法从其他来源获得。

"You agree, right?" 法官当庭问道。Buckley 随后承认 Subramanian 是正确的，同时补充称，他认为所需步骤现在已经完成，尽管在传票最初发出时并未完成。

Bower 报道说，"It’s the kind of admission that tends to end an argument before it starts, and Subramanian treats it that way," "‘Seems like you've got two options,’ he says to Buckley. ‘Either we can quash the subpoenas or you could withdraw the subpoenas.’"

由于在这一关键问题上失利，法官对政府其余立场也同样不以为然，进一步表明这场争议如今不再主要围绕调查的广泛主张，而是围绕这些传票是否满足触及记者消息来源的法律标准。

Bower 报道称："Asked if he has anything to add, Buckley allows himself one small act of defiance: the government disputes any suggestion of bad faith, he says. And that's where Buckley left it,"