U.S. Magistrate Judge William E. Fitzpatrick issued an opinion Monday, granting Comey’s legal team access to transcripts, audio recordings and all evidence presented to the grand jury that indicted him in September on charges of making false statements to Congress and obstruction of a congressional proceeding. 

Comey was indicted September 25, 2025—just days before the five-year statute of limitations expired—on two counts stemming from testimony he gave to the Senate Judiciary Committee on September 30, 2020. During that hearing, which examined the FBI’s investigation into links between Russia and Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign, Senator Ted Cruz questioned Comey about whether he had authorized anonymous leaks to media outlets.

The indictment alleges Comey made false statements when he denied authorizing such leaks, specifically regarding information provided to news media about the FBI’s investigation of Hillary Clinton’s handling of classified material. Comey has pleaded not guilty to both charges.

Fitzpatrick’s ruling identified nearly a dozen irregularities that he said “may rise to the level of government misconduct resulting in prejudice to Mr. Comey.” The judge wrote that while disclosure of grand jury materials is rarely granted, “the record points to a disturbing pattern of profound investigative missteps, missteps that led an FBI agent and a prosecutor to potentially undermine the integrity of the grand jury proceeding.”

Central to the judge’s concerns was the handling of evidence obtained during a separate 2017-2021 investigation known as “Arctic Haze,” which focused on potential unauthorized disclosures of classified information but ultimately resulted in no charges. FBI agents executed four search warrants in 2019 and 2020 to access devices and accounts belonging to Daniel Richman, a Columbia Law School professor who served as Comey’s attorney and friend.

The court found that when FBI agents searched those materials again in September 2025—this time as part of the Comey investigation—they did so without obtaining a new warrant, despite the fact that the new investigation focused on different alleged crimes and a different target. “Inexplicably, the government elected not to seek a new warrant for the 2025 search, even though the 2025 investigation was focused on a different person, was exploring a fundamentally different legal theory, and was predicated on an entirely different set of criminal offenses,” Fitzpatrick wrote.

The judge expressed alarm that the government may have exposed and used communications protected by attorney-client privilege. Although Richman represented Comey as his attorney starting May 9, 2017, the warrants authorized searches through May 30, 2017, and the government never engaged Comey in the process of identifying privileged communications.

According to the ruling, an FBI agent conducting the September 2025 search was specifically instructed to seize “conversations between [Mr.] Richman and [Mr.] Comey,” with no apparent precautions to avoid collecting privileged communications. On September 25, 2025—the same day the grand jury was presented with the case—an FBI agent alerted the lead case agent and an FBI attorney that evidence obtained “may constitute attorney-client privileged or attorney-client confidential information”.​

Despite being exposed to potentially privileged information, the lead FBI agent proceeded to testify before the grand jury that same day as the government’s sole witness. “The government’s decision to allow an agent who was exposed to potentially privileged information to testify before a grand jury is highly irregular and a radical departure from past DOJ practice,” Fitzpatrick stated.

​​The judge also identified serious concerns about the conduct of Lindsey Halligan, the interim U.S. attorney who presented the case to the grand jury. Halligan, a former personal attorney to Trump, had no prosecutorial experience when she was installed in the position just days before seeking Comey’s indictment.​

Fitzpatrick found that Halligan appeared to make two “fundamental misstatements of the law” to the grand jury, though the specific statements were redacted from the public opinion. First, she appeared to tell jurors that Comey would not have a Fifth Amendment right to decline to testify at trial, “ignor[ing] the foundational rule of law that if Mr. Comey exercised his right not to testify the jury could draw no negative inference from that decision”.​

Second, the prosecutor appeared to suggest to the grand jury that it did not need to rely solely on the evidence before it to determine probable cause, assuring jurors “the government had more evidence–perhaps better evidence–that would be presented at trial”. “That statement clearly suggested to the grand jury that they did not have to rely only on the record before them to determine probable cause,” the judge wrote.

The ruling also highlighted how the indictment was obtained. Halligan initially sought a three-count indictment, but after the grand jury rejected one count and approved two others, a second indictment was prepared removing the rejected count.​​

However, Fitzpatrick expressed concern that the grand jury transcript and audio recording appear incomplete, noting that they contain no record of the grand jury being presented with the second indictment for deliberation.

Comey’s defense team has filed multiple motions to dismiss the indictment. In addition to arguing that grand jury misconduct tainted the proceedings, they contend that the perjury charge is invalid because Comey’s 2020 congressional testimony was “literally true” in response to a “fundamentally ambiguous” question.​

The defense also challenges Halligan’s appointment as unlawful, arguing that Trump and Attorney General Pam Bondi improperly installed her in the position. If a judge finds Halligan was unlawfully appointed, it would invalidate the indictment since she was the only Justice Department official to initially sign it.​

Career prosecutors working under Halligan had reportedly recommended against charging Comey, but she proceeded anyway. 

The Justice Department responded to Monday’s ruling by asking that it be put on hold, claiming Fitzpatrick’s order “is contrary to law” and that the judge “may have misinterpreted” some facts. The government maintains that the grand jury materials “confirm the baselessness of the defendant’s claim that privileged information may have been shared with the grand jury.”

A trial is currently scheduled for January 5, 2026, though the various pending motions challenging the indictment and Halligan’s appointment could significantly alter the trajectory of the case. Fitzpatrick’s findings establish grounds for further scrutiny but do not constitute final determinations on the pending motions to dismiss.