WASHINGTON, November 2, 2026 — The case against former FBI officials Nikki Floris and Bradley Benavides was dismissed by US Magistrate Judge Zia Faruqui, who ruled that prosecutors had not established probable cause that the two knowingly lied to Congress about their roles in investigations involving Hunter Biden. The decision by US Magistrate Judge Zia Faruqui delivered a sharp setback to a case brought days before the November 3 midterm elections and raised questions about the Justice Department’s handling of a politically sensitive prosecution. The dismissal does not necessarily end the matter: prosecutors may still seek an indictment from a grand jury.

Faruqui said the government had not supplied sufficient evidence at this stage to show that Floris and Benavides deliberately made false statements. Accounts of the hearing by the Associated Press, Reuters and other news organisations said the judge found that some statements cited by prosecutors were not false, while others could have reflected errors of memory rather than an intention to deceive. The ruling addressed the legal sufficiency of the complaint, not a final trial verdict on every allegation that has circulated around the case.

The judge also criticised what he viewed as serious procedural and investigative shortcomings. Reporting on the hearing said prosecutors had incorrectly described the former officials as having testified under oath during their 2023 congressional interviews. The judge questioned the speed with which the case had been assembled and the decision to proceed through a criminal complaint rather than first obtaining a grand-jury indictment. Those issues were important to his assessment of whether the government had established probable cause for the charges it filed.

Faruqui also raised concerns about the timing of the prosecution, which was brought shortly before voters decide control of Congress. He described the case as an example of what he called “weaponization” of federal law enforcement, according to accounts of the hearing. That was the judge’s criticism of the government’s conduct, not a finding that every allegation against the defendants or every decision by the department had been politically directed.

The Justice Department said it disagreed with the ruling and was considering its options. The department’s position is that the two officials made material false statements about their knowledge of and involvement in FBI investigations concerning Hunter Biden. Prosecutors could attempt to bring the matter to a grand jury, but any renewed case would need to satisfy the applicable legal standards and address the deficiencies identified by the judge.

Floris and Benavides were senior members of the FBI’s now-dissolved Foreign Influence Task Force, which worked on protecting the 2020 US election from foreign interference. Floris led the task force for part of the period from 2019 to 2022, while Benavides served as a section chief. The task force’s work included monitoring foreign influence risks, and its involvement in FBI inquiries related to Hunter Biden became a subject of congressional scrutiny after the 2020 election.

The US Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia announced the charges on October 23. According to the government’s account, the two former officials gave transcribed interviews to the House Judiciary Committee in 2023 and denied involvement in, or knowledge of, FBI investigations into Hunter Biden. Prosecutors alleged that documentary records, communications and witness accounts contradicted those answers. The charges were allegations, and both defendants were entitled to the presumption of innocence unless the government proved them guilty in court.

The controversy reaches back to the laptop attributed to Hunter Biden that became a political issue in the final weeks of the 2020 presidential election. Congressional Republicans questioned whether the FBI had properly handled information related to the laptop and whether officials had been candid about the bureau’s knowledge of it. The Foreign Influence Task Force was relevant because it was tasked with assessing foreign interference risks, including the possibility that material related to a candidate could be manipulated or used in an influence operation.

That broader political dispute does not resolve the specific criminal question the judge had to consider. A statement can be incomplete, imprecise or disputed without meeting the legal test for a criminal false statement. Prosecutors must establish that the statement was false in a legally relevant way and that the defendant acted with the required state of mind. Faruqui’s ruling, as reported, focused on the insufficiency of the evidence presented in the complaint to establish probable cause that the officials knowingly made the charged false statements.

The government’s initial case also drew attention to how the investigation was started and managed. At an earlier hearing, an FBI agent testified about concerns surrounding the investigation and the handling of the charging papers, according to reporting by The Washington Post and other outlets. The judge’s criticism of the process does not itself establish misconduct by every investigator or prosecutor involved, but it underscores why criminal cases require accurate affidavits, careful review and adherence to ordinary procedures—particularly when the allegations are politically consequential.

The timing gives the ruling significance beyond the two defendants. The case had become part of a wider argument about whether federal law-enforcement powers are being used fairly and consistently. Supporters of the prosecution said allegations of false testimony should be examined regardless of the defendants’ former positions. Critics argued that the investigation was driven by political grievances and that the rushed process risked turning a criminal case into a partisan instrument.

The judge’s decision does not settle that broader debate. It does, however, establish that the complaint before him did not meet the probable-cause threshold he applied. That is a narrower conclusion than a declaration that the defendants’ congressional statements were accurate in every respect, and it is also different from a jury finding after a trial. The distinction matters because public arguments about the case have often moved beyond the precise question the court was deciding.

For the Justice Department, the ruling creates a choice about whether to abandon the matter, seek further review where available or present evidence to a grand jury. A grand jury indictment would not establish guilt; it would allow the case to proceed under a different charging process. Prosecutors would still have to prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt if the case went to trial. The department has not announced a final decision on its next step in the reports reviewed for this article.

For Floris and Benavides, the dismissal removes the immediate complaint but does not automatically erase the public controversy surrounding their testimony or the FBI’s work during the 2020 election. Their legal position will depend on whether prosecutors take further action and on the details of any future filing. The available reporting does not establish that a new indictment has been obtained.

The case also highlights the importance of distinguishing an allegation from a finding. The Justice Department’s October announcement presented the evidence it said supported the charges. The judge’s November 2 decision assessed whether the complaint demonstrated probable cause. Neither the government’s allegations nor the judge’s criticism should be treated as a substitute for the full record of proceedings, and any further prosecution would need to be assessed on the evidence and legal arguments actually presented.

The immediate next step is therefore procedural rather than political: the department must decide whether it will seek a grand-jury indictment or take another permitted course. If it does bring a new case, the court will need to assess the charging instrument and supporting evidence under the applicable rules. If it does not, the dismissal will remain the central outcome of this prosecution, though it will not settle the broader disputes over the FBI’s 2020 election-related work or the handling of Hunter Biden laptop information.

As the United States votes on November 3, the case is likely to remain part of the political debate about the Justice Department’s independence and the treatment of former officials. The ruling’s lasting legal importance, however, will depend on the record and any subsequent proceedings—not on how either political party uses it in campaign arguments. For now, the court has dismissed the complaint because the evidence presented did not establish probable cause as required, while leaving open the possibility that prosecutors could return with a grand-jury indictment.