WASHINGTON - The Justice Department has opened a third criminal case against former FBI Director James Comey, accusing him of directing the disclosure of sensitive national-defense information to a reporter in 2016 as prosecutors raced against a 10-year statute of limitations.

The case was filed under seal on Oct. 5 and made public Monday by order of U.S. District Judge Trevor McFadden. Court records show two felony counts: transmitting a document related to national defense to someone not entitled to receive it, and conspiring with others to commit that offense.

Prosecutors did not first obtain an indictment from a grand jury. They instead filed a criminal information, a charging document normally used when a defendant waives the constitutional right to a grand-jury indictment. Comey has not waived that right and is contesting the validity of the filing.

The Justice Department said it used the information to stop the statute-of-limitations clock and called the procedure widely recognized in federal courts. Comey's attorneys argue that the government cannot preserve felony charges this way without his consent and that the deadline has expired. McFadden has not ruled on the dismissal request.

The allegations concern an October 2016 New York Times report about a secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court order requiring Yahoo to scan emails for messages potentially linked to a foreign terrorist organization. Prosecutors allege that Comey directed staff to correct what they viewed as inaccurate reporting published the previous day and, in doing so, caused classified information to reach a Times journalist.

Comey denies the charges. His lawyer, Patrick Fitzgerald, said the former director did not commit the alleged crimes and noted that the same disclosure was examined twice without prosecution. Then-special counsel John Durham recommended no charges in a classified 2018 memorandum, according to the defense, and a separate investigation called Tropical Vortex closed in 2020 without charges.

The newly unsealed matter is the third criminal effort directed at Comey since President Donald Trump returned to office. A 2025 prosecution alleging false statements to Congress was dismissed after a judge found that the prosecutor who brought it had been unlawfully appointed. The department is appealing. Comey also faces a separate case over a social-media image that prosecutors say threatened the president; he denies that allegation as well.

Trump fired Comey in May 2017 while the FBI was investigating contacts between Russia and Trump's 2016 campaign. Their conflict began earlier, after Comey said he resisted Trump's request for personal loyalty. Comey later became an outspoken critic of the president.

The latest case was unsealed hours after another federal judge ruled that the Justice Department unlawfully fired Comey's daughter, former federal prosecutor Maurene Comey. The department has not said the two matters are connected.

The law must be stronger than the feud

Comey's past office does not place him above the law. Deliberately transmitting national-defense information can cause serious harm, and a former FBI director should be investigated under the same rules that apply to any official entrusted with secrets. If prosecutors possess admissible evidence proving the charges, they should present it openly and secure a lawful indictment.

But equal justice also means that a president's public enemy cannot be pushed through a special process because ordinary prosecutors previously declined the case. The government is reviving decade-old conduct already investigated twice, using a charging method the defense calls invalid, while another Comey prosecution remains damaged by an unlawful appointment. That history makes procedural rigor more important, not less.

The timing compounds the problem. The filing emerged days before the midterm elections, during a broader series of Justice Department actions involving prominent political figures and election administration. Courts decide criminal liability, not campaign calendars, but public confidence depends on prosecutors showing that evidence and law drove the decision.

The criminal-information dispute is not a technical footnote. Grand juries are imperfect, yet they are a constitutional checkpoint between executive power and a felony prosecution. The Justice Department says appellate courts permit its approach to preserve a deadline. Comey's lawyers say a prosecutor cannot unilaterally create a valid felony case and seek approval later. McFadden's ruling will determine whether the case ever reaches its evidence.

Americans should resist two easy conclusions. Comey's opposition to Trump does not prove innocence. Trump's long campaign against Comey does not, by itself, disprove an allegation. Both sides must be judged through documents, testimony and rules applied consistently.

The greater institutional danger is normalization. If repeated prosecutions of a president's critic become ordinary, every future administration gains a template for turning the Justice Department into an instrument of personal retaliation. If senior officials can leak classified material without consequence, accountability also collapses.

The answer is not loyalty to Comey or Trump. It is loyalty to a process neither man controls: an independent judge, a lawful grand jury, transparent evidence and a trial free from political pressure. The department has made a grave accusation. It now carries an equally grave burden to prove that this is justice rather than another chapter in a feud.