Federal prosecutors have filed a motion seeking to accelerate a key ruling in the criminal case against former FBI Director James B. Comey, marking one of the first significant developments since his indictment last month. The move could determine whether Comey’s longtime friend and attorney, Patrick Fitzgerald, remains part of his defense team — and how sensitive evidence will be reviewed as the case moves forward.
The request, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, urges the court to quickly decide on how to handle potentially privileged communications that were seized during the investigation. The outcome could have major implications for both the defense and prosecution as they navigate one of the most politically sensitive legal battles in recent years.
Prosecutors Request “Filter Protocol”
In their motion, Assistant U.S. Attorneys N. Tyler Lemons and Gabriel J. Diaz asked Judge Michael S. Nachmanoff to approve and expedite the government’s proposed “filter protocol.” The procedure would involve appointing an independent team of Justice Department attorneys — often referred to as a “taint team” or “filter team” — to review materials that may be protected by attorney–client privilege before they are shared with prosecutors handling the case.According to filings reported by Politico and Newsweek, the prosecutors argued that an expedited decision is necessary to prevent delays in reviewing potentially crucial evidence. The material in question was obtained under a court-authorized warrant from an attorney believed to have had direct communication with Comey during his tenure as FBI director and afterward.
Prosecutors stated that some of the seized documents may contain information that could either support or implicate Comey. They also noted that the review could determine whether Fitzgerald, Comey’s lead defense lawyer, can continue representing him — depending on whether his prior involvement raises any conflict of interest concerns.
Possible Conflict of Interest QuestionedThe government’s motion specifically cites potential ethical concerns surrounding Patrick Fitzgerald’s role in the case. Fitzgerald, a respected former U.S. attorney and longtime friend of Comey, has worked closely with him since their overlapping time in federal service.
Prosecutors contend that if Fitzgerald was involved in any of the communications or actions that are now part of the case evidence, his ongoing representation could pose a conflict of interest, particularly if his own statements or actions could be relevant at trial.
“Given the possibility that some of the seized materials involve privileged or confidential communications between the defendant and multiple attorneys, including Mr. Fitzgerald, the government seeks guidance from the court to ensure proper handling of those materials,” the filing states.
Legal experts say the issue is not unusual in high-profile federal cases but requires careful judicial oversight to prevent ethical violations. “When the line between friend and counsel blurs, courts must take extra care to preserve fairness and integrity,” said Professor Daniel Marcus, a former Justice Department ethics advisor now teaching at American University.
A Rare Case Against a Former FBI Director
Comey’s indictment, filed on September 25, 2025, charged him with two felony counts: making false statements to federal officials and obstructing justice. The case marks an extraordinary moment in modern political and legal history — one of the few times a former FBI director has faced criminal prosecution.
According to the indictment, the charges stem from Comey’s alleged misleading testimony to Congress in 2020 and from actions prosecutors claim interfered with a separate investigation into the handling of federal records.
Comey has pleaded not guilty, and his defense team argues that the prosecution is politically motivated. They claim the Justice Department’s case represents “selective and vindictive prosecution,” pointing to what they describe as inconsistent treatment of officials from different political backgrounds.
“The evidence will show that Mr. Comey acted within the law and in the best interests of the institution he served,” Fitzgerald said in a statement earlier this month. “We will vigorously defend against these baseless charges.”
Judge Nachmanoff to Decide Next Steps
Judge Michael Nachmanoff, a Biden appointee who presides in the federal courthouse in Alexandria, Virginia, has been assigned to oversee the case. Known for his calm demeanor and reputation for fairness, Nachmanoff now faces the task of managing what is likely to be a high-profile and politically charged proceeding.
The upcoming ruling on the filter protocol is expected to set the tone for how the court will handle sensitive or classified materials throughout the trial. The judge’s decision will also determine the timeline for discovery — the process by which both sides exchange evidence — and could influence whether the case proceeds smoothly or becomes bogged down in disputes over privilege and confidentiality.
Legal analysts say such procedural issues, while often overlooked by the public, can significantly shape the outcome of major cases. “What happens now with the filter process could determine what evidence is admissible later,” said Sarah Lindholm, a former federal prosecutor. “It’s one of those behind-the-scenes steps that can have enormous consequences.”
Broader Implications for the Justice System
The Comey case has already become a focal point for debates about politicization within the Justice Department. Supporters of the former FBI director argue that the charges are part of a broader trend of targeting officials associated with previous administrations, while critics contend that no individual — regardless of rank — should be above the law.
The Justice Department has emphasized that its actions are based solely on evidence and legal standards, not political motivations. “The Department’s commitment is to impartial justice,” a spokesperson said. “No one is being targeted or protected for political reasons.”
Nevertheless, the optics of the case — particularly given Comey’s past conflicts with former President Donald Trump and his high-profile role in politically sensitive investigations — have ensured that every development will be closely scrutinized by both the public and the media.
Comey’s Legal Strategy
Comey’s legal team has indicated plans to file motions challenging the legitimacy of the charges and the process by which evidence was collected. They are expected to argue that the government’s actions violated due process and that key communications should be excluded from the record under attorney–client privilege.
In previous filings, the defense has accused prosecutors of “overreach” and “retaliation”, alleging that the case was brought for political gain rather than genuine legal concerns. Fitzgerald and his co-counsel are reportedly preparing a comprehensive motion to dismiss the indictment, which could be filed in the coming weeks depending on the court’s rulings.
For now, the immediate question remains whether Fitzgerald will stay on the defense team. If the court finds that his involvement presents a conflict, Comey could be forced to appoint new counsel, potentially delaying proceedings.
Looking Ahead
The judge’s decision on the filter protocol is expected soon, and it will likely serve as a key indicator of how the court intends to manage sensitive issues of privilege and confidentiality. Once the matter is resolved, the case could proceed toward preliminary hearings and trial preparation.
Whatever the outcome, the proceedings against James Comey are poised to draw significant public attention — not only for their legal implications but for what they represent about the intersection of justice, politics, and accountability in Washington.
As one observer noted, “This isn’t just a case about one man or one set of charges. It’s a test of how the justice system handles its own — and whether the American public can trust that the law applies equally to everyone.”