In a recent development over the weekend, a federal judge issued a stern reminder to the Department of Justice (DOJ) that it is prohibited from searching the previously seized files of James Comey’s former attorney and confidant without a legitimate search warrant. This comes as the government seeks to overturn the dismissal of the former FBI director’s case.

Senior U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly reiterated her earlier directives, emphasizing that the DOJ is not allowed to conduct searches for classified materials in Daniel Richman’s personal computer files without a warrant. She made it clear that even if the Trump administration had overlooked this requirement, she was committed to underscoring these legal obligations.

In her order issued on Saturday, Judge Kollar-Kotelly criticized the DOJ for seemingly requesting her approval to examine Richman’s seized files for classified information without obtaining the necessary search warrant. This request directly contradicts her previous rulings, which protected Comey’s associate from such warrantless searches.

The legal action initiated by Richman against the government started in late November, shortly after another federal judge dismissed Comey’s case. The dismissal was based on the finding that U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi had improperly appointed Lindsey Halligan as the interim U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia.

Richman argues that the government violated his Fourth Amendment rights by conducting illegal searches of his files in its efforts to prosecute Comey. These files, seized up to six years ago during an FBI leak investigation, did not lead to any charges against Richman. The DOJ, however, contends that Richman’s lawsuit is a tactic to shield a friend from being reindicted.

Kollar-Kotelly, appointed to judgeships by Presidents Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton, and once appointed the presiding judge of the FISA court by then-Chief Justice William Rehnquist, said earlier in December that Richman “made each of the necessary showings to obtain a narrow temporary restraining order” against the DOJ, blocking the feds from searching his files without a warrant.

The judge found Richman was “likely to succeed on the merits of his claim that the Government has violated his Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable searches and seizures by retaining a complete copy of all files on his personal computer (an ‘image’ of the computer) and searching that image without a warrant.” She ordered that the DOJ could not “access the covered materials” or share them “without first seeking and obtaining leave of this Court.”

Kollar-Kotelly subsequently clarified that the DOJ was allowed to access the “covered materials” for the “limited purpose” of “permanently delet[ing]” one “purportedly classified memorandum” from “any such” Richman device before returning the device to the plaintiff.

On Christmas Eve, Halligan and Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche filed an emergency motion for more time to certify that the DOJ has complied with the judge’s order. But in that motion, the judge said Saturday, the government seemed to contemplate a warrantless search for classified information beyond the lone memorandum.

“[T]he Government’s Motion also appears to request permission to search Petitioner Richman’s materials for classified material without first obtaining a valid search warrant, which would be in direct contravention of the Court’s prior Orders,” Kollar-Kotelly wrote. “Accordingly, because the Court has already ordered that the Government may not search Petitioner Richman’s material to identify additional classified information without first obtaining a valid search warrant, the Court shall DENY the Government’s request to do so.”

While the judge gave the DOJ until Jan. 5 to confirm its compliance, she emphasized that she has “repeatedly explained” what Richman has “consented” to regarding the single memo and what the DOJ must do from here.

“[T]he Court has explained that, on the present record, there is only one purportedly classified document within Petitioner Richman’s materials: the memorandum from Mr. Comey that was contained in the material originally seized in 2017 from Petitioner Richman’s personal computer hard drive,” Kollar-Kotelly summarized. “Petitioner Richman has consented multiple times to having the Government delete this classified memorandum from the material that is returned to him.”

“While the Court has clearly ordered that the Government may delete the single classified memorandum from Mr. Comey from the material seized from Petitioner Richman’s personal hard drive before returning those materials to Petitioner Richman, the Court has been equally clear in ordering that the Government ‘may not conduct any additional review of Petitioner Richman’s materials for classified material without first obtaining a valid search warrant,’” she added.

The judge noted that the Trump administration “reviewed” Richman’s files “numerous times” — “both lawfully and unlawfully” — and “failed to identify any purportedly classified material beyond the single memorandum identified in the record.”

As a result, Kollar-Kotelly ordered that the DOJ “shall not review” the files in search of “classified material beyond the single classified memorandum […] without first obtaining a valid search warrant.”