The government violated his rights by holding onto files long after the investigation ended
In a democracy governed by law, the tools of prosecution must themselves obey the law — a principle a federal judge reaffirmed Friday when she ruled that the Justice Department had violated the Fourth Amendment rights of a Columbia law professor to build a case against former FBI Director James Comey. Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly ordered the government to return files it had seized years ago and searched again without warrant, finding that the Constitution demands remedy even when the accused is a figure of controversy. The ruling does not end the matter entirely, but it places the weight of constitutional principle squarely in the path of a prosecution already shadowed by questions of legitimacy.
- A federal judge has ruled that prosecutors searching old, warrantlessly-reviewed files to build a new case against James Comey crossed a clear constitutional line — and must now return the evidence.
- The files belonged to Daniel Richman, a law professor and Comey associate, who alleged the government collected far more than any warrant ever authorized, including private medical records and sensitive correspondence.
- This ruling follows the collapse of an earlier Comey indictment dismissed last month after a separate judge found the appointing prosecutor had been unlawfully installed — leaving the DOJ's case against Comey twice wounded.
- The judge left prosecutors a narrow path: they may refile the seized records under seal and seek a lawful warrant, but the constitutional damage to their case is already significant.
- Comey, who has pleaded not guilty and called the prosecution vindictive, now has a federal judge's constitutional reasoning standing behind his defense.
A federal judge delivered a serious setback to the Justice Department's effort to prosecute James Comey on Friday, ruling that prosecutors had violated the constitutional rights of his longtime associate, Columbia law professor Daniel Richman, and must return computer files seized years earlier.
The files were originally obtained in 2017 during a media leak investigation that ended without charges. When prosecutors moved to build a new case against Comey this fall — alleging he lied to Congress about leaking information related to the FBI's Clinton email investigation — they searched those same files again without obtaining a fresh warrant. Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly found this conduct indefensible, concluding in a 46-page order that the government had violated Richman's Fourth Amendment protections by retaining his records long after the original investigation closed, then mining them for an entirely separate prosecution.
The ruling is the second major blow to the DOJ's case in as many months. A prior Comey indictment was dismissed after a Virginia judge found the prosecutor who brought it had been unlawfully appointed. Though prosecutors were permitted to try again, Friday's order significantly narrows that path.
Kollar-Kotelly did leave a sliver of daylight: the government may file a sealed copy of the records and later seek a lawful warrant to access them. But Comey, who has pleaded not guilty and accused the Justice Department of pursuing him out of vindictiveness, now has the weight of a federal court's constitutional reasoning behind his defense.
A federal judge has dealt a significant blow to the Justice Department's effort to prosecute James Comey, ruling Friday that prosecutors violated the constitutional rights of a close associate and must return computer files they had seized years earlier.
The files belonged to Daniel Richman, a Columbia University law professor and longtime friend of Comey's. The Justice Department had obtained them in 2017 as part of a media leak investigation—one that ultimately concluded without charges. But as prosecutors prepared a new case against Comey this fall, they searched those same files without obtaining a fresh warrant, hoping to find evidence that the former FBI director had lied to Congress about his role in leaking information to journalists.
U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly found the conduct indefensible. In a 46-page order, she concluded that the government had violated Richman's Fourth Amendment protections by holding onto his records long after the original investigation ended, then conducting warrantless searches of them for an entirely separate prosecution. The judge ordered the Justice Department to return the files to Richman, rejecting prosecutors' argument that doing so would merely obstruct their case against Comey. "When the Government violates the Fourth Amendment's prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures by sweeping up a broad swath of a person's electronic files, retaining those files long after the relevant investigation has ended, and later sifting through those files without a warrant to obtain evidence against someone else, what remedy is available to the victim of the Government's unlawful intrusion?" Kollar-Kotelly wrote. The answer, she said, was to return the property.
The ruling represents a stern rebuke of the Justice Department's conduct and erects a formidable obstacle to its efforts to bring new charges against Comey. The former FBI director was initially indicted in September on allegations that he had used Richman as a conduit to leak information to the media about his decision-making during the FBI's investigation into Hillary Clinton's private email server. Comey testified in 2017 that he had authorized Richman to share the contents of a memo documenting a conversation with President Trump. That first indictment was dismissed last month after a federal judge in Virginia ruled that the prosecutor who brought the case had been unlawfully appointed by the Trump administration. But the door remained open for prosecutors to try again—until now.
The history of how the government obtained Richman's files is complex. In 2017, after Comey was fired, he authorized the FBI to create a complete electronic copy of all files on Richman's computer and an attached hard drive, though the scope was meant to be limited. Then, in 2019 and 2020, the FBI and Justice Department obtained search warrants for Richman's email accounts and computer files as part of the media leak investigation. Richman has alleged that the government collected far more information than those warrants permitted, including personal medical information and sensitive correspondence. The most recent violation occurred in September, when prosecutors searched the files without any warrant at all as they prepared their case against Comey.
The judge did leave prosecutors with a narrow path forward. She permitted the Justice Department to file an electronic copy of Richman's records under seal with the Eastern District of Virginia and suggested that prosecutors could attempt to access the files later if they obtained a lawful search warrant. But the ruling makes clear that any future prosecution of Comey will face significant legal headwinds. Comey has pleaded not guilty, denied making any false statement, and accused the Justice Department of pursuing him out of vindictiveness. The judge's decision suggests those defenses now have considerable constitutional weight behind them.
Notable Quotes
When the Government violates the Fourth Amendment by sweeping up a broad swath of a person's electronic files, retaining those files long after the relevant investigation has ended, and later sifting through those files without a warrant to obtain evidence against someone else, what remedy is available to the victim?— Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly
The Court concludes that the Government's retention of Petitioner Richman's files amounts to an ongoing unreasonable seizure, and therefore the Government has violated his Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable searches and seizures.— Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly
The Hearth Conversation Another angle on the story
Why does it matter that the judge ordered the files returned? Couldn't the Justice Department just get a new warrant and search them again?
Technically yes, but the ruling changes the entire posture of the case. The judge found that the government violated Richman's rights by holding onto files from a closed investigation and then searching them without permission. That's a constitutional injury. Even if prosecutors get a new warrant, they're now operating under a cloud of judicial skepticism about their methods.
So this is really about the government overreaching—not about whether Comey actually did anything wrong?
It's both. The judge isn't saying Comey is innocent. She's saying the government can't use evidence obtained through unconstitutional means to prove he's guilty. That's a fundamental rule, but it only matters if the government actually violated someone's rights. Here, the judge found they did.
Why did the government hold onto Richman's files for so long after the leak investigation ended?
That's the question the judge was asking too. The files were collected in 2017 and 2019 as part of a media leak investigation that wrapped up in 2021 with no charges. There was no legal reason to keep them. Then in 2025, when prosecutors decided to go after Comey, they just searched the files without asking Richman or getting a new warrant. The judge saw that as an abuse.
What happens to the Comey case now?
It's severely weakened. The government can try to prosecute him again, but they can't use evidence from Richman's files unless they jump through new legal hoops. And they've already lost once on the original indictment. The momentum is against them.
Does this ruling protect other people too, or just Richman?
It's a broader statement about Fourth Amendment rights. Any time the government holds onto someone's files and searches them without a warrant, this ruling says that's unconstitutional. It's a check on prosecutorial power.