Federal prosecutors have informed the court that material in the government’s evidence in the case against former FBI Director James Comey contains classified information, a development that legal experts say will likely slow the pace of pretrial proceedings as judges and lawyers navigate specialized procedures designed to protect national security.

According to a CBS News report summarizing court filings, prosecutors flagged the presence of classified material and signaled the need to invoke protections under the Classified Information Procedures Act, the federal statute that governs how classified evidence is handled in criminal cases. Under CIPA, the court may conduct in-camera (private) reviews, require pretrial motions about access to and admissibility of classified material, and order security clearances for defense counsel and staff.

Those steps, routinely used in cases with national security implications, can add weeks or months to a docket. Obtaining security clearances for defense teams may take substantial time because investigators must vet lawyers and support personnel; judges often hold sealed hearings to evaluate classified documents and to determine whether the government can substitute summaries or redactions for sensitive material rather than disclose it to the defense in full. The procedure is intended to balance national security interests with the defendant’s right to a fair trial, but it is also a frequent source of delay and litigation.

“The mechanics of CIPA are straightforward, but the practical effect is delay,” said a former federal prosecutor who reviewed the filings and spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss ongoing litigation. “Courts can move quickly when procedures are routine, but once you introduce classified reviews and clearance processes, calendars expand.”

The defense has yet to file a full response in public filings, according to court records summarized in media reporting. Publicly available court dockets indicate judges typically schedule a classification-related status conference to set deadlines for security vetting, discovery, and any CIPA-related motions. How the judge in this matter will rule on scheduling and the scope of review remains unclear.

The procedural slowdown has broader implications. From an institutional perspective, the case highlights the ongoing friction between the justice system’s need for open process and the government’s obligation to protect sensitive information. Transparency advocates caution that excessive secrecy can undermine public confidence in high-profile prosecutions, while national security officials argue that disclosure of certain material could harm intelligence sources and operations.

Politically, delays may blunt any immediate electoral impact. Legal analysts note that a protracted pretrial period can keep a case in the public eye for months, shaping perceptions without producing quick resolution. That uncertainty matters to voters who evaluate public officials and institutions on timeliness and transparency.

Members of Congress and civic groups have signaled interest in oversight of classification decisions, arguing that repeated invocation of classified protections in criminal cases merits scrutiny to ensure it is not used to shield records unnecessarily. For now, the next steps are procedural: the court must set dates for classification proceedings, and defense counsel must obtain or be granted appropriate clearances before full discovery proceeds. That administrative work, court watchers say, is what threatens to lengthen the path to trial.