It started with a single motion — and it may become the legal earthquake that shakes the entire Trump-era prosecution of James Comey to its foundation.
In one bold filing, a Columbia law professor just launched a counterstrike that could wipe out years of investigative work in a single ruling.
According to newly filed court documents, law professor Daniel Richman — a longtime legal adviser and friend to former FBI Director James Comey — has accused federal prosecutors of violating his Fourth Amendment protections against unlawful search and seizure. And the details are already setting the legal world on fire.
Richman claims that agents exceeded their authority by diving into years-old digital archives, rummaging through personal data, emails, iCloud records, and attorney–client material that he once allowed investigators to access only under strict limitations for an entirely different matter. In his motion, Richman argues that officials went far beyond the original warrants — allegedly reviewing the entire trove of data rather than screening only what courts had approved.
If a judge agrees?
Much of the evidence tied to the Comey case could be thrown out completely.
And that’s only the beginning.
This motion drops at a moment when the Trump-aligned Department of Justice is already reeling. Within days, two separate appellate courts removed two U.S. attorneys — Lindsey Halligan and Alina Habba — who had overseen multiple high-profile indictments, including those targeting Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James. Their removal forced all indictments to be dismissed without prejudice, meaning prosecutors could start over… but not easily.
Now, with Richman’s legal grenade rolling across the courtroom floor, restarting a case against Comey becomes even harder.
Here’s why:
1. The judge has already suggested major constitutional violations.
A magistrate judge ruled last month that investigators improperly accessed files originally seized during the 2017 Clinton email probe, years before Comey’s indictment. That ruling signaled serious concerns about how broad the searches became — and Richman’s motion pushes that crack into a canyon.
2. The statute of limitations clock is running out.
Unless prosecutors can convince a court that previous indictments “paused” the clock — a difficult argument, given the finding that Halligan’s appointment was improper — the window for a new Comey prosecution may have already slammed shut.
3. Prosecutors may lose their biggest piece of evidence entirely.
If Richman wins his motion, anything derived from his digital files could be banned from use, poisoning a significant portion of the government’s original investigative narrative.
4. The DOJ must now pick new prosecutors… fast.
Sources suggest the administration is hunting for a new career prosecutor to step in, rebuild the grand jury, and try again. But with courts questioning the legitimacy of prior actions — and with the public increasingly calling the prosecutions politically motivated — the road ahead is anything but smooth.
Meanwhile, legal analysts are buzzing over another explosive possibility:
future judges may declare the entire prosecution “vindictive.”
If that happens, not only would the case collapse — it could generate a landmark ruling limiting how far future administrations can push politically sensitive prosecutions.
And here’s the quiet part no one in Washington wants to say out loud:
If this motion succeeds, Richman gets his files back.
If the files are excluded, Comey walks.
If the statute expires, the case dies.
Three different doors — all leading to the same ending.
What happens next will determine whether this is a procedural hiccup…
or the moment the Trump DOJ’s most high-profile legal pursuit simply evaporates.
The judge’s decision on Richman’s filing could drop at any time.
And if it goes the way many legal experts suspect, this may become the final blow in a prosecution saga already hanging by a thread.
As one attorney put it:
“The DOJ isn’t just on the ropes. It may already be down to the count.”
