Federal Judge to Consider Dismissal of Third DOJ Case Against James Comey

James Comey's Team Seeks Dismissal of Third DOJ Case Against Him

Attorneys for former FBI Director James Comey will appear in court this Friday to argue that the third federal case brought against him by the Trump administration should be dismissed.

The latest case involves two alleged crimes dating back to 2016, and Comey's team argues that there is no valid basis for prosecution. They contend that the government failed to secure an indictment from a grand jury before the statute of limitations expired.

The statute of limitations for federal crimes typically runs out after 10 years, which would mean that the charges against Comey are now time-barred. This argument could potentially have significant implications for the case.

Comey has been a long-time target of criticism and scrutiny from Donald Trump since his firing nearly a decade ago. The latest court appearance marks the third federal case brought against him in recent months.

The first case, which was dismissed, involved an indictment returned by a grand jury in the Eastern District of Virginia in September 2025. However, it was later revealed that the attorney who presented the case, Lindsey Halligan, had been acting as a federal prosecutor without proper authority.

This development led to the dismissal of the initial charges against Comey. The fact that this occurred so recently raises questions about the validity and legitimacy of the subsequent cases brought against him.

A federal judge has yet to rule on James Comey's motion to dismiss the third case brought against him by the Department of Justice. The trial date has been pushed back to 2027.

The latest case centers on allegations that Comey authorized his staff to speak with a New York Times reporter in October 2016 about classified information, which was being reported in another story at the time.

This case was filed under seal on October 5, exactly one decade after a story in The New York Times revealed how Yahoo had been complying with a secret order from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to scan email traffic of its users.

The mechanism used by government attorneys to bring the case against James Comey's team has been questioned by legal experts.

They argue that the way the case was brought undermines the complaint itself, suggesting that someone is dictating the process and forcing it through without proper justification.

A former federal prosecutor, Sarah Krissoff, pointed out that this approach raises concerns about the validity of the charges being made against Comey's team.

She believes that the use of a sealed court document to bring the case has created an air of secrecy around the proceedings.

District Judge Trevor McFadden has ordered the case unsealed and set a hearing for Friday on Comey's motion to dismiss, bringing some transparency to the situation.

The timing of this development is significant, coming at the end of a week marked by notable events in federal court in Washington.

A federal grand jury had rejected attempts by the Trump administration to indict Cassidy Hutchinson, a key witness for the House Jan. 6 committee, in another closely watched case.

Meanwhile, a federal magistrate judge held extensive hearings to examine the charges brought against two former FBI employees who were targeted by Trump allies on Capitol Hill.

This suggests that there is a growing trend of judges and grand juries holding officials accountable to the rule of law and requiring evidence-based cases.