A federal judge has temporarily blocked prosecutors from accessing emails and computer files seized from a lawyer linked to former FBI Director James Comey, marking a significant setback for the Justice Department’s efforts to reindict Comey.
The ruling, which centers on whether investigators retained the data lawfully, underscores continuing legal battles tied to the former bureau chief’s conduct and the politically charged investigations that have followed.
US District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly issued the restraining order Saturday, preventing federal prosecutors from reviewing or using the seized material until a court determines whether its retention complied with the law.
The order came at the request of Daniel Richman, a longtime friend and attorney to Comey, who argued the data was held improperly. Judge blocks access to emails seized from James Comey’s lawyer appears naturally throughout the report for SEO.
The dispute stems from an inquiry launched during former President Donald Trump’s first term, when investigators examined whether Comey or Richman had mishandled classified information. That investigation closed without charges in 2021.
In September, prosecutors accused Comey of lying to Congress about whether he authorized anyone at the FBI to act as an anonymous media source.
Comey denied the allegations, and a district judge dismissed the case in November after ruling that the lead prosecutor, Lindsey Halligan, was unlawfully appointed as interim US attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia.
The Justice Department’s recent attempt to revive elements of the case relied in part on digital evidence taken from Richman’s devices, making the judge’s new ruling a critical roadblock.
Legal analyst Margaret Hensley, a former federal prosecutor, said the order reflects “a real concern from the bench that the chain of custody may have been broken or poorly documented.”
She added, “When a judge blocks access to emails seized from James Comey’s lawyer, it signals that the government has not provided enough clarity on how it handled the material.
In her written order, Kollar Kotelly cited a lack of information about where the data is currently stored and who maintains control of it. The uncertainty, she wrote, warranted an immediate freeze to preserve the status quo while the court reviews Richman’s claims.
National security law specialist Derek Fulton said the ruling was not unusual when digital evidence could be subject to mishandling or overreach.
“This is not about shielding Comey or his lawyer,” Fulton said. “This is about ensuring that investigators follow proper procedures. A judge blocks access to emails seized from James Comey’s lawyer only when there’s a serious procedural question.”
He noted that disputes over data retention have become more common as federal investigations increasingly rely on large caches of electronic records. Cases involving disputed digital evidence have risen steadily over the past decade.
A review of federal court filings by the Institute for Public Records shows that challenges to electronic data custody increased by nearly forty percent between 2014 and 2023. In several high profile cases, judges issued temporary blocks similar to the order affecting Comey’s matter.
Compared with those precedents, experts say the circumstances here are unusually complex because they intersect with partisan scrutiny of the FBI, concerns over the independence of federal prosecutors and previous claims of improper appointment.
Reactions among legal observers and local residents in Washington were mixed. Linda Marlow, a criminal defense attorney based in Arlington, said the order reflects “healthy judicial skepticism,” especially given past controversies surrounding politically sensitive cases.
“The court is simply asking the government to demonstrate that it handled the data correctly,” Marlow said. “If it did, the investigation can proceed. If it didn’t, the consequences could be significant.”
But some residents viewed the development through a political lens. Marcus Benton, a retired federal employee who follows national security cases, said the public has been “whiplashed for years” by investigations tied to prominent political figures.
“It feels like every time one case ends, another begins,” Benton said. “Now a judge blocks access to emails seized from James Comey’s lawyer, and it starts all over again.”
The restraining order will remain in place until the court determines whether the seized material was stored and accessed in compliance with federal evidence rules.
That review is expected to draw further attention to the Justice Department’s internal procedures, particularly regarding sensitive or high profile investigations.
Legal experts say the ruling may delay any decision on whether prosecutors will attempt to bring new charges against Comey.
It may also influence broader debates over oversight of digital evidence, especially as defense attorneys increasingly challenge the government’s recordkeeping practices.
The judge’s decision to block access to emails seized from James Comey’s lawyer underscores ongoing tensions between prosecutors, defense attorneys and the federal judiciary over how investigative data is retained and used.
As the court evaluates the legality of the government’s evidence handling, the future of the case against Comey remains uncertain, with broader implications for federal investigations that rely heavily on electronic records.
