A federal judge has denied a high-stakes request by the Trump administration to cancel an evidentiary hearing regarding the FBI’s seizure of nearly 700 boxes of 2020 election records from Fulton County.
In a pivotal order issued March 20, 2026, Judge Jeffrey P. Boulee of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia ruled that significant “factual disputes” remain concerning the Jan. 28 raid. The decision forces the Department of Justice (DOJ) to defend its actions in open court, rejecting claims that a judicially approved warrant should shield the operation from further scrutiny.
The legal battle centers on a motion filed by Fulton County officials under Rule 41(g) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, which allows parties to move for the return of seized property. Local leaders argue the removal of ballots and tabulator tapes has paralyzed official duties and lacks a legitimate criminal basis.
Government attorneys sought to quash the hearing, asserting that petitioners lacked sufficient legal interest. However, Judge Boulee—a Trump appointee—found that the Fulton County clerk held “lawful possession” of the materials at the time of the seizure. He further clarified that the existence of a warrant does not grant the executive branch immunity from judicial review regarding how a search is executed.
The court’s focus now shifts to the “trustworthiness” of the evidence used to secure the warrant. Investigative leads suggest the FBI may have relied on long-debunked claims of voter fraud. Under the pending hearing, the court must determine if critical information was omitted from the affidavit submitted by FBI Special Agent Hugh Raymond Evans.
The DOJ has aggressively moved to quash a subpoena for Agent Evans, arguing that his testimony would provide a “roadmap” for litigants to disrupt an ongoing investigation. Judge Boulee dismissed this concern, noting that courts historically evaluate such motions even during active probes.
The case has gained national attention due to the unprecedented presence of Director of National Intelligence (DNI) Tulsi Gabbard during the raid. Traditionally, the DNI’s mandate is limited to foreign intelligence, raising questions about her role in a domestic law enforcement action.
During a Senate hearing last week, Sen. Mark Warner (D-VA) grilled Gabbard on her involvement. While Gabbard claimed she attended only to “observe” at the President’s request, her testimony appeared to contradict earlier statements by President Trump, who suggested she was directed by Attorney General Pam Bondi.
The evidentiary hearing is currently scheduled for March 27, 2026. While the ruling does not guarantee the return of the records, it ensures a public accounting of the administration’s justification for the seizure.
