Justice Department challenges court order limiting access to evidence in Comey investigation

The Justice Department filed a challenge Tuesday against a court order that has stalled its efforts to pursue a new indictment against former FBI Director James Comey, arguing that the ruling improperly shields crucial evidence.

The dispute centers on a weekend order by U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, which temporarily barred prosecutors from accessing computer files belonging to Daniel Richman, a Columbia University law professor and close Comey associate. Justice Department officials consider Richman a key figure in any potential case against the former FBI director.

In their filing, prosecutors called Richman’s request for the return of his files a “strategic tool to obstruct the investigation and potential prosecution” of Comey. They argued that Judge Kollar-Kotelly had exceeded her authority by ordering Richman’s property returned and claimed the ruling had significantly hampered their ability to move forward with the case.

The legal battle stems from allegations that Comey used Richman as a conduit to share information with news media about his decision-making during the FBI’s investigation into Hillary Clinton’s private email server. In September, prosecutors charged Comey with lying to Congress by denying that he had authorized an associate to serve as an anonymous source for the media.

That initial indictment was dismissed last month when a federal judge in Virginia ruled that prosecutor Lindsey Halligan had been unlawfully appointed by the Trump administration. While the dismissal left open the possibility of new charges, Comey has maintained his innocence, denied making false statements, and accused the Justice Department of pursuing a vindictive prosecution motivated by his longstanding tension with former President Donald Trump.

Following the case’s dismissal, Richman filed a motion seeking the return of his computer records, which the Justice Department had obtained through search warrants in 2019 and 2020 as part of a media leak investigation that was later closed without charges. According to Richman and his legal team, prosecutors continued to hold these materials for years despite the files containing “a significant quantum of privileged information.”

Justice Department officials reportedly searched these files this year specifically for communications between Comey and Richman that could support a case against the former FBI director. Richman’s lawyers contend that prosecutors conducted new, warrantless searches beyond the scope of the original warrants and retained his files for years without legitimate purpose.

Judge Kollar-Kotelly’s Saturday ruling sided with Richman, requiring the Justice Department to return the files and cease accessing them. However, in response to Tuesday’s objection from prosecutors, she did not immediately lift her order but instead allowed for additional filings from both sides. The judge indicated she believes Richman should have an opportunity to review the materials and assert any attorney-client privilege claims he deems necessary.

In their challenge, prosecutors characterized Richman’s motion as “a transparent effort to suppress evidence in the Comey matter” that had “effectively enjoined the government from investigating and potentially prosecuting Comey.”

“Federal courts cannot enjoin federal criminal prosecutions; a civil plaintiff cannot circumvent bedrock federal criminal procedure via an equitable proceeding like this one,” prosecutors argued. “So the Court should dissolve its temporary restraining order and deny Petitioner’s motion.”

The dispute highlights the complex legal maneuvering surrounding potential charges against Comey, who has been a polarizing figure since his handling of both the Clinton email investigation and the early stages of the Russia investigation during the 2016 election cycle. His 2017 firing by President Trump became a focal point in discussions about potential obstruction of justice by the then-president.

Legal experts note that the Justice Department’s determination to pursue charges against Comey, even after the initial indictment was dismissed, reflects the significant political sensitivities still surrounding these investigations years after the events in question. The court’s ultimate decision on access to Richman’s files could determine whether prosecutors can build a viable case against the former FBI director.