A federal judge has ordered the Justice Department to return evidence seized from a former FBI official closely associated with former FBI Director James Comey, delivering a significant setback to federal prosecutors and raising fresh constitutional questions about the government’s investigative tactics.

In a sharply worded ruling, the judge found that the evidence was obtained in violation of constitutional protections, determining that the government failed to meet the legal standards required for the seizure. As a result, prosecutors were barred from using the materials as part of their ongoing case, a move that could severely weaken the Justice Department’s prosecution.

The former FBI official, described in court filings as a longtime ally of Comey, has been under investigation over allegations tied to his conduct while serving in a senior law enforcement role. While the Justice Department has not publicly detailed all aspects of the case, the ruling suggests that investigators overstepped legal boundaries during the evidence-gathering process.

Legal analysts say the decision underscores the judiciary’s role in enforcing constitutional limits, even in high-profile cases involving national security or federal law enforcement agencies. The judge emphasized that constitutional safeguards apply regardless of a defendant’s position or the political sensitivity surrounding a case.

The Justice Department expressed disappointment with the ruling and is reviewing its options, including a possible appeal. A spokesperson declined to comment on whether prosecutors will continue pursuing the case without the suppressed evidence.

Attorneys for the former FBI official hailed the ruling as a major victory, arguing that the investigation was fundamentally flawed from the start. They maintained that the government’s actions reflected an overreach that threatened civil liberties and due process.

The decision comes amid heightened scrutiny of federal law enforcement practices, particularly those involving politically connected figures. It also adds to ongoing debates over the balance between aggressive prosecution and constitutional protections in cases tied to senior government officials.

Whether the case can proceed without the disputed evidence remains unclear. Legal experts note that the ruling significantly narrows the prosecution’s path forward and could ultimately force the Justice Department to reconsider its strategy, or abandon the case altogether.