A federal magistrate judge sharply criticized the Justice Department on Monday, saying the criminal case against former FBI director James B. Comey may be compromised by a series of serious errors—and possible misconduct—made during the grand jury process. The rebuke marks one of the clearest indications yet that the prosecution, already controversial inside the department, is facing real legal peril.
In a 24-page ruling, Judge William E. Fitzpatrick faulted Lindsey Halligan, the relatively inexperienced prosecutor appointed by President Donald Trump to lead the case, for making what he called “fundamental and highly prejudicial” misstatements of law when she appeared alone before the grand jury. Fitzpatrick also noted that key materials reviewed by the grand jury were incomplete, raising questions about whether prosecutors fully and accurately presented evidence.
“The government’s actions in this case — whether purposeful, reckless or negligent — raise genuine issues of misconduct,” Fitzpatrick wrote. He said the errors appeared “inextricably linked” to the indictment itself and must be explored by the defense.
In a highly unusual step, Fitzpatrick ordered prosecutors to turn over portions of the grand jury record to Comey’s legal team — a measure he openly described as “extraordinary.” Grand jury materials are almost always kept secret before trial, even from defendants. But the judge said disclosure was necessary to determine whether Halligan or the FBI agent who testified misled the grand jury or violated procedure.
The Comey indictment charges the former FBI director with lying to Congress and obstructing its work during a 2020 Judiciary Committee hearing, where he answered questions about whether he authorized FBI personnel to act as anonymous sources in press reports about ongoing investigations. Comey has denied wrongdoing.
But even before Fitzpatrick’s ruling, the case had been marked by unusual turmoil. Halligan’s predecessor, U.S. Attorney Erik S. Siebert, declined to bring charges against Comey, citing insufficient evidence. Within days, Trump removed Siebert and installed Halligan instead — a move that shocked many career prosecutors in the Eastern District of Virginia. Halligan had never handled a criminal case; her résumé consisted largely of insurance law and a place on Trump’s legal team during his classified documents investigation.
Fitzpatrick’s decision comes shortly after another judge raised doubts about whether Attorney General Pam Bondi had the legal authority to appoint Halligan as U.S. attorney in the first place. A ruling on that question is expected by Thanksgiving, meaning the Comey case now faces multiple challenges simultaneously — procedural, constitutional, and evidentiary.
Taken together, the judges’ concerns paint a picture of a prosecution struggling under the weight of its own irregularities. What began as an effort to bring criminal charges against one of Trump’s most frequent critics has instead sparked questions about the politicization of the Justice Department, the bypassing of career prosecutors, and the basic integrity of the grand jury process.
For now, Fitzpatrick has not dismissed the indictment outright. But his ruling signals that the Justice Department may soon have to defend not just its case, but the way it built it.
