This past weekend, a federal judge issued a pointed reminder to the Department of Justice (DOJ) regarding its limitations on searching files previously seized from James Comey’s former lawyer and confidant, emphasizing that such actions require a “valid search warrant.” This reminder comes as the government appeals the dismissal of the former FBI director’s legal case.

Senior U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly reiterated that her earlier rulings clearly prohibited the DOJ from conducting warrantless searches in Daniel Richman’s personal computer files for classified material. To ensure there was no misunderstanding, she took the opportunity to “re-emphasize those obligations,” particularly directed at the Trump administration.

In a Saturday order, the judge criticized the government for seeking her “permission” to search Richman’s files for classified content without acquiring a proper warrant. This request was exactly what her previous orders had forbidden, siding with Comey’s associate.

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

Richman argued that the government violated his Fourth Amendment rights by conducting unauthorized searches of his files in their pursuit of Comey. These files had been seized up to six years prior during an FBI leak investigation, which ultimately led to no charges against Richman. The DOJ contended that the lawsuit served as a shield for a colleague against potential reindictment.

Judge Kollar-Kotelly, who has been appointed by Presidents Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton and previously served as the presiding judge of the FISA court under Chief Justice William Rehnquist, stated earlier in December that Richman successfully demonstrated the need for a temporary restraining order. This order prevents the DOJ 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.”