Attorneys for former FBI Director James Comey appeared in court Friday seeking the dismissal of the third federal criminal case brought against him over a 13-month span. The latest legal challenge stems from allegations dating back to October 2016, when Comey allegedly authorized his staff to speak with a journalist to correct the record regarding a report on classified information.
The case was filed under seal on October 5, exactly a decade after a media report detailed how Yahoo complied with a secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court order to scan user email traffic. Unlike typical indictments, the matter was initiated directly through a criminal information filed by the government without a grand jury indictment or prior judicial sign-off, prompting Comey’s defense to argue that the 10-year statute of limitations had expired.
Legal experts expressed skepticism regarding the procedural mechanism used by prosecutors. Former federal prosecutor Sarah Krissoff noted that the government bypassed standard review procedures. If a legitimate case existed, Krissoff said, prosecutors should have secured a judge’s signature on a criminal complaint or presented evidence to a grand jury, adding that the handling of the situation appeared heavily directed and bound to fail.
U.S. District Judge Trevor McFadden ordered the case unsealed on a Monday and scheduled Friday’s hearing to weigh the motion to dismiss. Defense attorneys contend there is no valid legal basis for the prosecution, marking the latest flashpoint in ongoing legal battles since President Donald Trump fired Comey nearly a decade ago.
The current proceeding is the third federal case brought against Comey since September 2025, when a Trump-aligned attorney, Lindsey Halligan, secured a grand jury indictment in the Eastern District of Virginia that was later dismissed because Halligan was determined to have been unlawfully acting as a federal prosecutor. A second prosecution, dubbed the seashells case, involved an Instagram post featuring seashells arranged to spell “8647,” which prosecutors alleged constituted a threat against the president. Comey’s defense team moved to dismiss that indictment on multiple grounds, explaining that the numerical reference draws from restaurant terminology meaning an item is out of stock, and a federal judge subsequently pushed the trial into 2027.
Friday’s court appearance coincided with a broader wave of politically charged proceedings in federal court in Washington. Earlier in the week, a federal grand jury declined to return an indictment against Cassidy Hutchinson, a prominent witness for the House Jan. 6 committee, while a federal magistrate judge conducted multi-day hearings regarding criminal complaint charges against two former FBI employees targeted by congressional allies.
Krissoff pointed to these concurrent developments as evidence of the judiciary maintaining strict procedural standards. The federal courts and grand juries are holding tight to the rule of law, requiring genuine evidence and asking tough questions, Krissoff observed, describing the judiciary as a critical anchor for the country’s legal framework.
