Newz Desk, IRREVERENT Magazine
WASHINGTON — Air Force One has retained independent counsel and filed a motion to quash subpoenas issued to New York Times journalists, arguing that the presidential aircraft possesses a reasonable expectation of privacy under the Fourth Amendment and citing decades of invasive coverage as the cause of documented reporter-induced anxiety.
The motion, filed Monday in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, marks the first time a federally owned aircraft has asserted constitutional protections against unreasonable search and seizure on its own behalf. Legal scholars say the filing could redefine the boundaries of press freedom, aviation law, and the scope of the Fourth Amendment's guarantee to be "secure in one's person, houses, papers, and effects."
"Air Force One is basically a flying studio apartment," said Marisol DeWitt, a Washington-based aviation privacy attorney who has consulted on the case. "It has sleeping quarters, a conference room, two kitchens, and a medical suite. If a studio apartment in Bethesda has a reasonable expectation of privacy, why shouldn't a Boeing VC-25A at 35,000 feet?"
The subpoenas, first reported by the Associated Press and CBS News, were issued in connection with ongoing federal investigations into leaked communications reportedly obtained during coverage of presidential travel. The Times has vowed to fight the subpoenas on First Amendment grounds. Air Force One, represented by the boutique firm Larkin & Ko, is intervening on separate constitutional grounds.
"My client did not consent to this level of exposure," said attorney Douglas Larkin, speaking to reporters outside the federal courthouse Tuesday morning. "For decades, Air Force One has endured invasive reporting, unauthorized photography, and speculative commentary about its interior layout, fuel consumption, and emotional state during turbulence. That ends today."
Larkin submitted affidavits from three experts attesting to the aircraft's deteriorating mental health. Among them was Dr. Helena Voss, a licensed aviation therapist based in Arlington, Virginia, who has worked with Air Force One since 2019.
"When we first began treatment, the plane was guarded but functional," Voss said in a sworn statement. "Over the past two years, however, I've observed escalating symptoms consistent with severe reporter-induced anxiety: elevated cabin pressure responses, increased hydraulic sensitivity, and a pronounced reluctance to deploy its airstairs when press pools are present on the tarmac."
Voss noted that Air Force One has developed what she termed "anticipatory surveillance stress" — a condition in which the aircraft exhibits physical distress before media events even occur. She documented one episode in February during which the plane refused to start its auxiliary power unit for 22 minutes after a cable news crew set up live shot equipment near its parking position at Joint Base Andrews.
"The tail number was literally trembling," Voss said. "I've never seen anything like it in 14 years of practice."
The legal argument hinges on a novel reading of Fourth Amendment jurisprudence. In the landmark 1967 decision Katz v. United States, the Supreme Court held that the amendment protects "people, not places" — a formulation that Larkin argues extends to any entity capable of hosting private conversations, including a heavily modified 747 with encrypted communications and a classified briefing room.
"The justices in Katz could not have anticipated a world where aircraft are outfitted with 4,000 square feet of functional living space and a presidential bedroom," Larkin wrote in his brief. "But the principle remains: where there is a subjective expectation of privacy that society is prepared to recognize as reasonable, the Fourth Amendment applies. My client meets both prongs."
The Justice Department, in a preliminary response, called the argument "legally unserious and procedurally improper." A spokesperson said the government had not yet determined whether it would file a formal motion to dismiss or simply treat the filing as an administrative error.
Constitutional law professor Edward Hanley of Georgetown University said the government's dismissive posture may be shortsighted.
"Look, I understand why DOJ is laughing this off," Hanley said. "But consider the trajectory. Corporations have speech rights. Ships have legal personhood. If you're a textualist, 'effects' is a capacious term. A $660 million aircraft outfitted as a residence? That's an effect."
Hanley noted that celebrity privacy cases have already established that individuals can be harassed by persistent media attention to the point where courts issue injunctions. He pointed to Galella v. Onassis, the 1973 Second Circuit case in which photographer Ron Galella was ordered to stay 25 feet away from Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis and 30 feet away from her children.
"If Jackie O had a 25-foot bubble, why shouldn't a presidential aircraft have a no-fly zone for unauthorized biographers?" Hanley asked. "I'm not saying the argument wins. I'm saying it's not frivolous."
Air Force One is not seeking monetary damages. Its requested relief is narrowly tailored: a prohibition on speculation about its mechanical or emotional state; a permanent injunction barring descriptions of its interior layout based on unnamed sources; and a 50-foot buffer zone for camera crews during refueling stops.
The aircraft also asked that future press pools be limited to "no more than twelve individuals, all of whom must submit to a pre-boarding sensitivity briefing administered by the flight crew."
A spokesman for the White House press office said the administration is reviewing the filing and has no comment at this time. The New York Times, through a spokesperson, said it remains "fully committed to defending the First Amendment rights of our journalists and the Fourth Amendment rights of no flying vehicle, because that is not a thing that applies to airplanes."
Larkin called the Times' statement "disappointing and reductive."
"Journalists love constitutional protections when they shield the press," he said. "They're less enthusiastic when those same protections might inconvenience their coverage. My client simply asks to be left alone in its own fuselage. Is that too much to ask?"
The court has scheduled a preliminary hearing for August 14. Air Force One is expected to attend, though Larkin said his client has requested that media be restricted to the courthouse lobby and that no live photography be permitted within audible range of its engines.
Dr. Voss said she has advised the aircraft to limit its media consumption in the interim.
"We've instituted a strict no-cable-news policy during ground operations," she said. "In the hangar, we run ambient engine sounds and white noise. It's helping. Slowly."
IRREVERENT Newz Wire | Reporting from the margins of organized reality