A federal judge in Washington on Monday, November 2, threw out the criminal case against two former FBI officials accused of lying to Congress about Hunter Biden, in a ruling from the bench that found prosecutors had failed at the first legal hurdle — showing probable cause that a crime was committed at all. U.S. Magistrate Judge Zia M. Faruqui dismissed the complaint against Nikki Floris and Bradley Benavides after days of arguments and an hourlong hearing, the Associated Press and CNN reported. The dismissal is a new development in a case that began with the charges announced on October 23 and continued with Faruqui's refusal on October 27 to accept an added obstruction charge filed overnight.

Source: CNN via KION, Nov 2, 2026

'I am deeply troubled by what has happened in this case,' Faruqui said, according to CNN, adding that the case was built on assumptions and filed at the direction of President Donald Trump. 'What has transpired here cannot be described as anything other than weaponization,' he said, in words carried by both CNN and the Associated Press. He also said the case has been 'marketing material for people not to join the FBI.' The judge noted that the Justice Department could have brought a case arising from 2023 statements at any time, but chose to do so two weeks ago, in the run-up to Tuesday's midterm voting: 'I will not bury my head in the sand and pretend that I cannot read a calendar,' the AP reported him saying.

What Floris and Benavides were accused of

Floris and Benavides are former top Washington-based intelligence specialists who served on the FBI's Foreign Influence Task Force — Floris as its deputy assistant director from mid-2019 through mid-2022, Benavides as a section chief from mid-2019 through the 2020 election. Each was charged with one count of making a false statement, over testimony they gave in 2023 to the House Judiciary Committee as Republicans questioned the task force's involvement in the Hunter Biden investigations. As the complaint was reported, prosecutors alleged Benavides falsely said he had learned through Wikipedia that the FBI possessed the laptop, and that Floris falsely claimed she had no knowledge of Hunter Biden being discussed at the task force. Those were allegations in a complaint, not findings — and on Monday the judge found they did not amount to probable cause.

The background reaches back two elections. The Justice Department says the laptop at the centre of the case was dropped off by Hunter Biden, former President Joe Biden's son, at a Delaware computer repair shop in 2019. The Foreign Influence Task Force was created after Russia interfered in the 2016 election to monitor clandestine foreign efforts to manipulate American politics. Prosecutors' case also pointed to a 2020 'defensive briefing' Floris and Benavides gave lawmakers, which Republican Senators Chuck Grassley of Iowa and Ron Johnson of Wisconsin have said was used to undermine their Biden investigation and link it to Russian disinformation — a longstanding grievance of President Trump and his allies, who have accused the FBI of suppressing information harmful to the Biden family during the 2020 campaign, which Joe Biden won.

A case the judge said was rushed from the start

At a preliminary hearing last week, an FBI agent who worked the case testified that he had been concerned the investigation would be seen as 'political.' The agent said the investigation was opened right after President Trump gave an election-security speech last July and that it had been mandated by FBI Director Kash Patel, who kept close watch on it. Faruqui, the AP reported, noted the investigation was opened a day after a primetime speech in which Trump rehashed grievances over his 2020 election loss, and described the prosecution as rushed, overtly political and dogged by 'critical mistakes.'

The judge's concerns were visible from the beginning, the AP reported: he questioned why the Justice Department charged the case by criminal complaint — a route typically used when investigators urgently need to take someone into custody — instead of an indictment requiring a grand jury's approval. He then criticised prosecutors for filing an amended complaint with the additional obstruction charge straight onto the docket overnight, without first clearing it with the court — something he said he had never seen before — and refused to sign it on October 27. The New York Times, as reported in coverage of the ruling, found the judge dismantled the case point by point, concluding that most of the statements charged were not actually false, that none were made knowingly, and that none had any material effect on the congressional investigation.

Awaaz Punjab reported the earlier stage of this case when the charges were announced last month. Read: the original charges against Floris and Benavides

What happens next

A dismissal for lack of probable cause ends this complaint, but it does not legally bar the Justice Department from trying again: the department may still seek a grand jury indictment against the two former officials, whose lawyers had pressed for dismissal. That path has its own obstacle, NBC News noted — grand juries in Washington have been sceptical of politically charged cases against people the administration has targeted, most recently rejecting an attempted indictment of Cassidy Hutchinson. The ruling lands one day before the November 3 midterm elections, and the reports published Monday carried no announced next step from the Justice Department.