A federal judge in Washington on Tuesday, October 27, 2026, rejected a new obstruction charge against two former FBI officials accused of lying to Congress about the Hunter Biden laptop case, scolding prosecutors for filing the charge overnight without judicial approval in what he called an unheard-of break from normal charging practice. The ruling, from U.S. Magistrate Judge Zia Faruqui, struck the proposed complaint from the record but left the original false-statements case against Nikki Floris and Bradley Benavides intact, one week before the November 3 midterm elections.

Key Points

• Judge Zia Faruqui refused to approve a new obstruction charge against former FBI officials Nikki Floris and Bradley Benavides, calling the overnight filing unsigned, unsworn and unapproved.
• The pair were arrested on October 23, 2026, on charges of making false statements to Congress about their knowledge of a laptop the Justice Department says belonged to Hunter Biden.
• An FBI agent testified the investigation was opened after a July speech by President Donald Trump on election interference and was mandated by FBI Director Kash Patel.
• The agent, Bryan Witt, called the assignment a "huge distraction" and said he had concerns the inquiry would look political.
• The ruling does not end the original case, and prosecutors could try to add the obstruction charge again through the proper channels.

What Happened

The dramatic, hours-long hearing on Tuesday centred on a document prosecutors filed at 12:20 a.m. that morning, styled as a "superseding criminal complaint." It sought to add charges of obstruction and attempted obstruction of a congressional proceeding, under 18 U.S.C. section 1505, to the false-statements case against Floris, the former head of the FBI's Foreign Influence Task Force, and Benavides, the task force's former section chief. The case is being prosecuted by the Washington office of U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro.

Faruqui refused to approve it. The filing carried a signature block bearing his typed name but lacked his signature, and it had been placed on the public docket with no court approval. Criminal complaints normally require a judge to find probable cause that a crime was committed before they proceed. "I am not going to bless it as a superseding complaint," Faruqui said. "We have never had complaints filed that are unsigned," he added. "It is inappropriate. It harms the defendants."

Floris's lawyers moved on Tuesday to strike the new filing, calling it unsigned, unsworn and unapproved by any judicial officer. They accused prosecutors of trying to repair deficiencies in the original complaint, replace the officer attesting to its allegations, and add another charge hours before a scheduled preliminary hearing. "It represents a serious abuse of the criminal charging process," the defence motion said. The lawyers argued the document was filed at 12:20 a.m. to disrupt the hearing and avoid testing whether the original allegations established probable cause.

A court notice appeared on the public docket on Tuesday explaining that federal prosecutors had filed the paperwork incorrectly and needed to have it processed and sworn before it could be placed on the public docket. Government lawyers acknowledged the error during in-person statements to the judge on Tuesday. Faruqui ticked off several atypical aspects of the case, including the decision to file charges by criminal complaint, which he noted is more often used when the government has disrupted an active crime or needs to take a defendant into custody immediately because of a potential danger to society. "Everything is a little sideshow on top of a sideshow," he said, adding that prosecutors appeared to be throwing "gas" on the defendants' assertions that there is nothing typical about this case.

Background and Context

The case, announced on Friday, October 23, accuses Floris and Benavides of falsely playing down their knowledge about a laptop the Justice Department says Hunter Biden, the son of former President Joe Biden, abandoned at a computer repair shop in Delaware in 2019. Prosecutors say the pair claimed, when interviewed in 2023 in a separate congressional investigation related to the Biden family, to have no independent insight into the FBI's possession of the laptop. In reality, according to the criminal complaint, the two participated in numerous discussions about the laptop in their roles leading the Foreign Influence Task Force, which the Trump administration disbanded last year.

Floris led the task force from mid-2019 through mid-2022, while Benavides served as its section chief through the 2020 election. According to the original charging documents, both approved an internal project known as "Round River," which collected derogatory informant reporting about Hunter Biden and examined whether it could be labelled Russian disinformation. Prosecutors cited internal communications showing the pair discussed the laptop after the New York Post published its October 2020 report on it. Benavides proposed language for the FBI director's talking points saying the bureau had not determined whether the story was part of a Russian disinformation effort. Floris reviewed the language and replied, "Looks good!" Prosecutors contend those exchanges, and other evidence, contradict their subsequent statements to Congress distancing themselves from the Hunter Biden investigations.

The charging documents also cite an October 15, 2020, NBC inquiry that Floris forwarded to FBI leadership and Benavides, asking whether she could confirm that the bureau possessed Hunter Biden's laptop. Floris previously drew scrutiny over a separate internal message in which she said she was "basically running a shadow government across the FBI." Prosecutors allege the pair sought to minimise or conceal the task force's engagement with the Hunter Biden investigations and to impede congressional scrutiny. Both were released following their arrests and deny wrongdoing.

The prosecution revisits a tangled saga that roiled the final weeks of the 2020 race after the New York Post revealed the existence of a laptop it said had been dropped off by the younger Biden at a Delaware computer repair shop about a year earlier. The Post said it had obtained a hard drive of the laptop from Rudy Giuliani, a close ally of President Donald Trump, and reported on some of its contents, including emails that appeared to show some of Hunter Biden's foreign business dealings. The curious circumstances of the laptop's discovery raised concerns among Democrats and former intelligence officials about possible Russian involvement, particularly as the Trump administration's own intelligence community had assessed that Moscow was attempting to undermine the candidacy of Democratic nominee Joe Biden, who went on to defeat Trump in 2020. Trump's then-national intelligence director, John Ratcliffe, quickly sought to quell speculation about the laptop's provenance by saying there were no signs it had anything to do with Russian actors. The younger Biden was ultimately convicted on gun and tax charges, and President Joe Biden pardoned his son in late 2024.

Hunter Biden Laptop Case: The Agent's Testimony

The most damaging moments for prosecutors came not from the paperwork dispute but from the witness stand. Agent Bryan Witt, who works in Kansas City, Missouri, testified under defence questioning that the investigation was launched after a July primetime address by Trump in which the president amplified debunked theories about the 2020 election he lost and elevated his yearslong push to raise doubts about the legitimacy of U.S. elections. Witt said FBI Director Kash Patel had directed that the investigation be opened and assigned it to his office, directing him to investigate Floris and other officials believed to be involved in recalling a disputed FBI intelligence report about an alleged effort by China to influence the election through fraudulent driver's licences.

Among the grievances the White House raised at the time was that disputed memo. Trump and some allies have cited it as proof of what they contend was a Chinese plot to intervene in favour of Joe Biden, his Democratic opponent. But senior FBI officials ordered the document recalled because of concerns about the validity of the intelligence. Witt said the basis for the investigation was Trump administration suspicions that the FBI in 2020 had suppressed intelligence that could have been harmful to the Bidens. He said he understood that the inquiry being opened in the aftermath of a Trump speech, and at the behest of the FBI director, made it appear like a "political" investigation, and that Patel and FBI leadership maintained a keen interest in the probe. "They wanted us to investigate aggressively," Witt said.

Witt suggested he had been begrudgingly assigned to the investigation and had regarded it as a "huge distraction" from other casework. "I had concerns that this would be political," he said. The testimony was elicited by defence lawyers looking to bolster their argument that the prosecution was politically motivated. Even before Witt testified, Mary Dohrmann, another lawyer for Floris, broached what she called the "elephant in the room," saying "evidence is mounting that this prosecution is about some political football — and not the law or the facts."

Ron Safer, a lawyer for Benavides, challenged the prosecution's theory during the hearing. He suggested his client had no motive to lie and pointed out that Benavides was questioned in 2023, long after he had left his position on the task force, about events that had occurred several years earlier. "What evidence have you uncovered that in September of 2023, Mr. Benavides remembered the correct answers, in your view, to the questions asked about Hunter Biden but gave knowingly incorrect answers?" Safer asked Witt.

Reactions and Quotes

Faruqui's rebuke was unusually blunt, even by the standards of a judiciary that has repeatedly clashed with the Justice Department this year. "I'm concerned with your view as to what the law is," he told prosecutors. "Why today, on this one case, have you changed the entire history of how you charge cases?" The judge said he had never before seen a prosecutor file an unsigned criminal complaint, describing it as "inappropriate" given the defendants' presumption of innocence.

Defence lawyers framed the overnight filing as an attempt to salvage a weak case. Beyond calling it a "serious abuse of the criminal charging process," they argued prosecutors were trying to replace the attesting officer and add a charge at the last minute rather than defend the original complaint at the preliminary hearing. Prosecutors, for their part, acknowledged the filing error in court but have not conceded that the underlying obstruction theory is unsound — a distinction that matters, because the government could still seek the charge again through a properly sworn complaint or an indictment.

The ruling landed as another setback for a Justice Department that has employed unusual manoeuvres in splashy investigative actions ahead of next week's midterm elections. Newly unsealed documents in a separate case, for instance, revealed that prosecutors are attempting to again prosecute former FBI Director James Comey, an outspoken Trump critic, in a manner that Comey's lawyers say is legally invalid. The pattern — high-profile targets, aggressive timing, and procedural fights in open court — has become a recurring theme of the department's pre-election docket, and it has given defence lawyers in several cases a ready-made argument that politics, not evidence, is driving the calendar.

Why It Matters

The Hunter Biden laptop case matters for three reasons that go beyond the fate of two former officials. First, it tests the Justice Department's credibility in politically sensitive prosecutions. When a judge strikes a charging document as unsigned and unapproved, and the case agent concedes the investigation followed a presidential speech and a director's mandate, the department's claim to be following the facts wherever they lead becomes much harder to sustain in public — even if the original false-statements charges ultimately prove sound.

Second, it tests the limits of criminalising congressional testimony years after the fact. Benavides was questioned in 2023 about events from 2020 and earlier, after leaving the task force. Prosecutors must prove not merely that his answers were wrong, but that he knew they were wrong at the time — a difficult showing when the questions concern internal deliberations from several years earlier, and one Safer pressed directly at the hearing. If the government cannot clear that bar, the case could collapse at the preliminary stage regardless of the obstruction fight.

Third, the timing matters. With the November 3 midterms one week away, every Justice Department setback is read politically, fairly or not. Supporters of the prosecution will note that Faruqui's ruling was procedural, not a judgment on guilt, and that the original charges stand. Critics will note that the department chose to bring this case by complaint, then tried to expand it overnight, in the final week of a campaign in which the president has made the alleged suppression of the laptop story a central grievance. Both readings will feature in the closing arguments of the campaign; only the court record will settle which one the evidence supports.

What Happens Next

The immediate question is whether prosecutors will refile the obstruction charge properly. Faruqui's order struck the document from the record but did not bar the government from seeking the same charge through a sworn complaint presented to a judge, or from presenting it to a grand jury. Any refiling would face the same defence argument — that the charge was added to rescue a case whose original complaint may not establish probable cause — and the same judicial scepticism about the case's unusual history.

The original false-statements charges now move toward a preliminary hearing or grand jury presentation, where prosecutors must show probable cause that Floris and Benavides knowingly made false statements to Congress. Defence lawyers are expected to press their political-motivation argument further, including through discovery requests about how the investigation was opened and who directed it. Witt's testimony has already given them a foundation: an agent's own account of a director-mandated inquiry launched after a presidential speech.

Beyond this case, watch for how the Justice Department handles its other pre-election prosecutions in the coming week. Judges in Washington have shown little patience for procedural shortcuts, and each rebuke narrows the department's room for manoeuvre. For Floris and Benavides, the next court date — not the next headline — will determine whether they face trial, and on which charges.

Frequently Asked Questions

What did Judge Faruqui reject in the Hunter Biden laptop case? He refused to approve a new obstruction charge against Nikki Floris and Bradley Benavides because prosecutors filed it overnight as an unsigned, unsworn complaint with no judicial approval, and he ordered it struck from the record.

What are Floris and Benavides originally charged with? Making false statements to Congress, under 18 U.S.C. section 1001, over their 2023 testimony about their knowledge of a laptop the Justice Department says belonged to Hunter Biden. Both deny wrongdoing and were released after their October 23 arrests.

Why did the FBI agent's testimony matter? Agent Bryan Witt testified the investigation was opened after a July speech by President Trump and mandated by FBI Director Kash Patel, and that he regarded it as a "huge distraction" and feared it would look political — testimony the defence is using to argue the prosecution is politically motivated.

Does the ruling end the case? No. Faruqui's refusal did not resolve the original false-statements charges, and prosecutors could try to add the obstruction charge again through proper channels.

What is the Hunter Biden laptop story? The New York Post reported in October 2020 on a laptop it said Hunter Biden left at a Delaware repair shop in 2019, with a hard drive obtained from Rudy Giuliani. Hunter Biden was later convicted on gun and tax charges and pardoned by his father in late 2024.

Related coverage: James Comey Third Criminal Case: DOJ Accuses Ex-FBI Chief of Leaking in 2016; Kagan Warns Supreme Court Rulings Are Damaging US Democracy Before Midterms; Eric Swalwell FBI Raid: Beverly Hills Mansion Searched in Probe.