Judge Loses Patience as Trump DOJ’s Emergency Filings Trigger Stunning Courtroom Rebuke

A federal judge has sharply rebuked the Department of Justice after a cascade of emergency motions exposed what critics describe as a pattern of procedural chaos and constitutional violations in the government’s pursuit of former FBI Director James Comey. The latest court order signals growing judicial frustration—and an accidental admission by prosecutors that may further undermine their case.

At the center of the dispute is the DOJ’s handling of materials belonging to Daniel Richman, Comey’s longtime lawyer and confidant. The government has repeatedly sought emergency relief while failing to comply with basic court instructions, prompting the judge to question whether prosecutors understand elementary Fourth Amendment requirements governing search warrants and attorney-client privilege.

The case is already weakened by structural flaws. A prior indictment was dismissed after a court found the U.S. attorney who brought it had been improperly appointed. Compounding matters, the alleged conduct involving Comey dates back more than five years, raising serious statute-of-limitations issues that prosecutors have struggled to overcome.

According to court filings, the DOJ’s only apparent path forward would require reliance on privileged communications between Comey and his lawyer—materials shielded from review unless prosecutors can demonstrate crime-fraud exceptions before a judge. That showing has not been made. Instead, the court found that investigators conducted warrantless searches of Richman’s electronic files, a constitutional violation that tainted the grand jury process and helped sink the original indictment.

In a meticulous order, the judge laid out a straightforward remedy: segregate materials collected under prior warrants, deposit a complete copy with the court, return Richman’s property, and obtain a new, valid search warrant before reviewing anything further. The instructions were explicit, limited, and grounded in settled law. Prosecutors did not follow them.

Rather than comply, the DOJ filed additional emergency motions, citing holiday staffing shortages and requesting more time to review and delete files—language the judge seized upon as a revealing admission. By asking for time to continue reviewing electronic devices, prosecutors implicitly acknowledged they were still searching materials without a warrant, directly contradicting the court’s order.

The judge’s response was blunt. She reiterated that only a single classified memorandum could be deleted and warned that any further review of Richman’s materials without a valid warrant would constitute another Fourth Amendment violation. The court made clear it would not allow the government to cure past misconduct by compounding it.

Legal analysts note that the episode raises troubling questions about whether the DOJ’s missteps stem from incompetence or strategy. Either explanation is damaging. As the statute of limitations closes in and judicial patience wears thin, the Comey investigation appears increasingly less like a viable prosecution and more like a cautionary tale about overreach, constitutional shortcuts, and the consequences of ignoring clear court orders.