Nov 2, 2026 · 46 min
Comey case tests limits of politicized prosecution
Weekend Law: James Comey, ICE Shooting & Copycat Drugs
The episode connects a former FBI director’s prosecution, immigration-court settlements, and drug-company enforcement to questions about federal power and legal process.
- 1Comey’s criminal information raises questions about grand-jury rights, the statute of limitations, and prosecutorial evidence.
- 2A Texas immigration settlement may let the administration change court procedures without the usual Administrative Procedure Act process.
- 3Eli Lilly is combining lawsuits, regulatory referrals, and potential patent enforcement to block unapproved retatrutide copies.
Don't miss
Robert Mintz explains why prosecutors used a criminal information rather than a grand-jury indictment and how Comey is challenging that move.
The brief
The killing of Alex Pretti during Minnesota protests raises questions about victims’ rights, federal evidence, and how families can obtain information from authorities.
Robert Mintz explains how a Texas settlement over immigration judges’ power to pause deportations could bypass the Administrative Procedure Act’s normal safeguards.
The Comey case turns on an unusual criminal information, a grand-jury waiver, and an effort to toll the ten-year statute of limitations.
Repeated grand-jury refusals involving politically prominent figures sharpen the episode’s central concern: whether prosecutorial decisions are being shaped by political pressure.
Eli Lilly’s campaign against unapproved retatrutide copies combines lawsuits and regulatory referrals, reflecting the high cost and legal uncertainty of protecting a drug before launch.
Weekly email
State of the Pod, every Monday
The week's most-discussed names and stories from podcasts, with the moments behind them. Free, five minutes, unsubscribe in one click.