The U.S. Justice Department has filed a motion asking a federal court to lift a temporary injunction that currently prohibits the use of crucial evidence in its ongoing investigation of former FBI Director James Comey. Prosecutors say the order — issued last week — has effectively stalled their probe, and argue that the blocked material is essential if they plan to bring new charges.
Block on Evidence Hinders Comey Investigation
A federal judge recently restricted access to communications and data seized from Daniel Richman — a longtime confidant and former lawyer to James Comey — following a civil lawsuit asserting the evidence was improperly obtained. The data includes material taken from Richman’s personal computer in a prior investigation, which a court now evaluates for potential constitutional violations under the Fourth Amendment.
Prosecutors argue that the barrier “effectively enjoined the government from investigating and potentially prosecuting Comey.” They have requested that the court lift the restriction, criticizing what they call an attempt to use civil litigation as a tool to impede a criminal inquiry.
Background: Prior Indictment Dismissed, But DOJ Eyes Fresh Charges
Earlier this year, Comey was indicted on accusations he lied to Congress during a 2020 Senate hearing about whether the FBI had authorized anonymous media sources — including Richman — to leak information. But a judge dismissed the charges after finding the prosecutor who brought them was unlawfully appointed.
Despite that dismissal, the Justice Department has reportedly considered presenting a new indictment. The newly blocked evidence from Richman’s files is seen as a possible linchpin for any renewed case. With prosecutors now seeking to restore access, the next few days may be pivotal.
What Comes Next: Court to Decide Scope of Evidence Use
The court must decide whether the seized data can be used in future filings. If the order is lifted, prosecutors could revive plans to indict or re-indict Comey. If not, the Justice Department’s pathway appears increasingly narrow — especially given questions about statute of limitations and the legality of prior evidence collection.
The outcome could shape not only the fate of this high-profile case, but also broader debates over the use of previously seized communications in reinvestigations of dismissed charges.
