10
Loading video...
By Gabe Whisnant
News Editor
0
Share
Newsweek is a Trust Project member
See more of our trusted coverage when you search.Prefer Newsweek on Googleto see more of our trusted coverage when you search.
Former FBI Director James Comey is facing a third federal case brought by President Donald Trump's Justice Department, this time accusing him of violating the Espionage Act by directing the disclosure of national defense information to a reporter in 2016.
The case centers on a New York Times story and allegations that Comey directed FBI staff to speak with a reporter to “correct misinformation” in a Reuters report, according to the DOJ.
Prosecutors filed the charges on the final day of what they contend is an applicable 10-year statute of limitations and did so without obtaining a grand jury indictment. Comey has already moved to dismiss the case, arguing that the extended limitations period applies only when an indictment is returned, not when prosecutors proceed through a criminal information.
Read More on U.S.
The case has been assigned to U.S. District Judge Trevor McFadden in Washington, D.C.
“Filing a criminal information to toll the statute of limitations is a widely recognized practice in federal court and has been approved by multiple Circuit Courts of Appeals,” a Justice Department spokesperson said in a statement. “This is an ongoing criminal investigation, and we will not comment further.”
Comey’s lawyers, however, dispute that the filing extended the deadline and have signaled they will seek to have the charges thrown out as untimely.
“For the third time in little more than one year, the Department of Justice has attempted to charge Mr. Comey with a federal crime,” his attorney, Patrick Fitzgerald, said. “Mr. Comey steadfastly maintains his innocence.”
In a video posted to his Substack, Comey sharply criticized the new case, calling it an “appalling abuse of the Department of Justice” and maintaining his innocence.
“Well, they’re back again,” Comey said. “It would almost be funny if it weren’t such an appalling abuse of the Department of Justice. One that we cannot become numb to.”
Comey added: “Nothing’s changed with me. I’m still innocent. I’m still not afraid of these people. And I still believe in the independent federal judiciary.”
Newsweek has reached out to the DOJ via email on Monday evening for comment.
jamescomey.pdf.PDF
Maurene Comey Lawyers After DOJ Court Win: ‘President Is Not Above the Law’
Earlier Monday, a federal judge ruled that President Trump’s Justice Department unlawfully fired Maurene Comey, James Comey's daughter, from her job as a federal prosecutor in New York last year.
U.S. District Judge Jesse M. Furman, appointed in 2012 by former President Barack Obama, ruled that Comey’s July 2025 termination violated federal law and granted her retroactive reinstatement and back pay.
Her attorney Ellen Blain told Newsweek via email that Comey had sought reinstatement only for the period between July 16 and December 20, 2025, and will remain at Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler in New York, where she is now a partner.
Comey spent nearly a decade as an assistant U.S. attorney in Manhattan, working on several high-profile cases, including the Sean “Diddy” Combs trial. After her dismissal, she sued the Justice Department and other defendants, alleging violations of the separation of powers and her constitutional rights.
Comey’s attorneys, Blain, Nicole Gueron, Deepa Vanamali and Margaret Donovan, said in a statement shared with Newsweek: “This hard-earned victory belongs to Ms. Comey, to all civil servants, and to all fighting for the rule of law. As the Court correctly held, to accept the government’s argument about unlimited executive power ‘would be to unsettle the very equilibrium established by this Nation’s constitutional system.’ This decision reaffirms our bedrock system of checks and balances: the President is not above the law.”
Newsweek has reached out to the DOJ via email on Monday afternoon for comment.
...
Comey alleged that she was fired because she is the daughter of James Comey, a longtime foe of President Donald Trump, or because of her perceived political affiliation and beliefs.
The Justice Department argued that Comey’s firing was lawful because then-Attorney General Pam Bondi had authority to remove assistant U.S. attorneys and because restricting that authority would intrude on the president’s constitutional power over the executive branch. The government maintained that federal prosecutors exercise core executive authority, including conducting criminal investigations and prosecutions, and therefore must remain subject to presidential control.
In a 55-page ruling, Furman rejected the government’s argument that limits on the removal of federal prosecutors unconstitutionally intruded on presidential power.
“The Court concludes that Defendants are wrong,” Furman wrote.
The judge said the government’s position “flies in the face of nearly two centuries of Supreme Court precedent” and that accepting it would risk unsettling “the very equilibrium established by this Nation’s constitutional system.”
The Supreme Court Precedents Behind Furman's Ruling
Furman pointed to a line of Supreme Court decisions recognizing Congress’ ability to restrict the removal of certain lower-level executive officials. He highlighted the court’s 1886 decision in United States v. Perkins, which held that when Congress gives department heads the power to appoint inferior officers, it may also impose limits on their removal.
The judge also cited Myers v. United States, the landmark 1926 decision recognizing broad presidential removal authority, noting that it nevertheless distinguished inferior officers whose appointments Congress had vested in department heads. Furman also relied on Morrison v. Olson and the Supreme Court’s 2021 decision in United States v. Arthrex in concluding that protections for inferior officers remain constitutionally permissible.
Furman rejected the government’s reliance on Trump v. United States, the Supreme Court’s 2024 presidential-immunity decision, which described some presidential powers as “conclusive and preclusive.” Furman said that ruling focused principally on the powers of the president himself and did not overturn the court’s longstanding precedents governing the removal of inferior officers.
“This Court, however, is bound to follow the Supreme Court’s precedents unless and until the Supreme Court itself overturns them,” Furman wrote.
comey.pdf.PDF
Trump’s Long-Running Feud With James Comey
Maurene Comey’s firing drew particular scrutiny because of her father’s long-running adversarial relationship with Trump.
Trump fired James Comey as FBI director in May 2017 while the bureau was investigating Russian interference in the 2016 election and possible links to the Trump campaign. The two have remained bitter adversaries in the years since, with Trump repeatedly calling for Comey to face prosecution.
An earlier criminal case accusing James Comey of lying to Congress in 2020 was dismissed after a judge found that the prosecutor who brought the charges had been unlawfully appointed. Comey separately faces a pending indictment accusing him of threatening Trump through an Instagram post depicting seashells arranged as “86 47.” Comey has sought to have that case dismissed.
Newsweek’s reporters and editors used Martyn, our AI assistant, to produce this story. Learn more about Martyn here.
View 0 Comments
Submit Correction
View Editorial & AI Guidelines