type: timeline_event
U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly issued a temporary restraining order on December 7, 2025, blocking the Justice Department from accessing, using, or disseminating evidence seized from Daniel Richman, a Columbia Law professor and former attorney for James Comey. The judge found that Richman was "likely to succeed" in proving the government violated his Fourth Amendment rights "by retaining a complete copy of all files on his personal computer" and searching that image without a warrant. The ruling potentially blocks DOJ from re-indicting Comey following the November 24 dismissal of his case due to prosecutor Lindsey Halligan's unlawful appointment.
Judge Kollar-Kotelly ordered prosecutors to "identify, segregate, and secure" a complete forensic image of Richman's personal computer created by the Inspector General in 2017, as well as emails from his Columbia University and iCloud accounts and "any material obtained, extracted, or derived" from those files currently in the government's possession. The order prevents DOJ from accessing, sharing, disseminating, or disclosing these materials pending resolution of Richman's Rule 41(g) motion to recover property. The temporary restraining order was initially effective through December 12, 2025.
The Fourth Amendment violations identified by Judge Kollar-Kotelly were substantial. The underlying warrant authorized searches only through April 30, 2017, yet the FBI retained and accessed data extending through June 10, 2017 from Richman's hard drive and shockingly through August 13, 2019 from his iCloud account—more than two years beyond the warrant's temporal scope. This extended period covered times when Richman represented Comey as his attorney, raising serious attorney-client privilege concerns in addition to the Fourth Amendment violations. The judge found the government's retention and searching of this data without a warrant constituted callous disregard for constitutional protections.
The ruling exposed troubling procedural problems beyond the constitutional violations. Judge Kollar-Kotelly noted that no DOJ attorney had formally entered an appearance in the case despite a week having passed, the government couldn't identify who possessed Richman's materials, and sealed warrant documents remained unexplained despite prior court orders to unseal them. The judge ordered direct certification to Attorney General Pam Bondi by noon on Monday, December 8, demanding accountability for the government's conduct. These procedural failures suggested either profound disorganization or deliberate obstruction within the Justice Department.
The blocked evidence had formed the foundation of prosecutors' original case against Comey. DOJ had relied on files from Richman's computers to indict Comey on charges of making false statements and obstructing Congress related to his 2020 congressional testimony about FBI officials anonymously providing information to news outlets. The evidence came from a prior leak investigation of Comey that had concluded years earlier without charges. When executing new search warrants targeting Richman in 2025, the Justice Department excluded Comey from the privilege filter process despite foreseeable attorney-client privilege concerns—conduct that Magistrate Judge William Fitzpatrick had earlier characterized as "highly irregular and a radical departure from past DOJ practice."
Richman's Rule 41(g) lawsuit argued that the government's access to his files demonstrated callous disregard for his Fourth Amendment rights. His motion sought to recover the computer image made by the Inspector General and emails obtained derivative to it. By granting the temporary restraining order, Judge Kollar-Kotelly reversed the default status—restricting DOJ access unless it could demonstrate compliance with constitutional requirements—effectively preventing the government from conducting searches during the deliberative period. This judicial intervention provided immediate protection for Richman's constitutional rights while the merits of his Fourth Amendment claim were litigated.
The timing of the ruling significantly complicates DOJ's ability to pursue a new prosecution of Comey. The original indictment was dismissed on November 24, 2025, when Judge Cameron McGowan Currie ruled that Lindsey Halligan lacked lawful authority to bring the case because her appointment as interim U.S. Attorney was unlawful. While dismissals without prejudice theoretically allow the government to refile charges, the five-year statute of limitations on the underlying conduct may have already expired. Now, with the evidentiary foundation of the case blocked by Fourth Amendment concerns, prosecutors face the challenge of either building a case with entirely different evidence or resolving the constitutional violations—a process that could take months and extend well beyond any statute of limitations deadline.
The case represents another significant instance of judicial independence checking prosecutorial overreach in the politically motivated prosecution of Comey. Following Magistrate Judge Fitzpatrick's November 17 findings of "profound investigative missteps" and Judge Currie's November 24 dismissal based on Halligan's unlawful appointment, Judge Kollar-Kotelly's Fourth Amendment ruling adds a third layer of judicial rebuke. The ruling demonstrates that even when political appointees weaponize the Justice Department against perceived enemies, federal judges remain willing to enforce constitutional protections and procedural safeguards. Attorney General Bondi's December 8 deadline to certify government compliance adds urgency to DOJ's need to account for its constitutional violations.