A federal judge in Georgia handed President Donald Trump’s Department of Justice a significant legal win this week, ruling that the FBI does not have to return more than 600 boxes of 2020 election ballots and records seized from Fulton County earlier this year. U.S. District Judge Jean-Paul Boulee denied the county’s motion to force the materials back, finding that Fulton County failed to clear the high legal bar needed for a court to step into an active federal investigation. The ruling, filed May 6, means the DOJ’s probe into alleged irregularities in Fulton County’s handling of the 2020 election continues with the physical evidence firmly in federal hands. A federal judge just ruled that the U.S. Department of Justice does not have to return 2020 election ballots seized by FBI agents to Fulton County.https://t.co/esjC46HEXO — Greg Bluestein (@bluestein) May 7, 2026 The Fulton County Board of Commissioners, Board of Registration and Elections, and Clerk of Court Che Alexander had filed a motion under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 41(g) seeking the return of ballots, vote-tabulator tapes, ballot images, and voter rolls taken by FBI agents from a county election warehouse on January 28, 2026. They amended the motion on February 17, and the court held an evidentiary hearing on March 27 before receiving additional evidence and supplemental briefing. The full court order lays out why every prong of the legal test weighed against Fulton County. Judge Boulee applied the Richey equitable-jurisdiction framework, which controls when a court should order the government to return seized property during an ongoing investigation. Fulton County needed to show more than disagreement with the warrant affidavit. The county had to establish that federal investigators acted with “callous disregard” for its rights, that it needed the original materials, that it would suffer irreparable injury without them, and that no adequate legal remedy existed. The order found that Fulton County failed on each point. Boulee acknowledged that parts of the affidavit were flawed, including the way it handled scanner-programming context, ballot images, and tabulator-tape issues. He also said the affidavit contained facts that cut both directions, and the county did not claim the FBI case agent intentionally lied. The court found Fulton County already had copies of the seized records, had not shown concrete irreparable harm, and had not shown the seizure would interfere with the 2020 certification or future elections. The amended Rule 41(g) motion was denied, and the clerk was directed to close the case. The copies issue drove a major part of the ruling. Fulton County already had access to the records it said it needed, while federal investigators kept custody of the originals. On that record, the county could not show the kind of concrete harm that would justify a federal court stepping into a live probe and ordering the evidence returned. The underlying investigation centers on a range of irregularities flagged in the FBI’s warrant affidavit, including missing ballot images, duplicate ballots, issues with tabulator tapes, the appearance of pristine ballots, problems identified during the risk-limiting audit, and discrepancies in recount numbers. None of those allegations have been adjudicated or proven at this stage, but the DOJ now has the physical materials to continue examining them. As CBS News reported, the scope of the FBI’s January search was sweeping. The FBI search centered on far more than a small paper file. Agents went to a Fulton County elections office earlier this year with a court-authorized warrant and took ballots and other 2020 election materials. The materials at issue included physical ballots, vote-tabulator tapes, digital ballot images, voter-roll records, and related materials connected to the county’s 2020 election operations. Fulton County then asked the court to force those materials back quickly, arguing the warrant process and affidavit did not justify federal custody of the originals. The ruling left room for criticism of the affidavit without giving the county the remedy it wanted. Judge Boulee found some statements and omissions defective, including parts dealing with election mechanics and the way certain concerns were presented. Still, the legal question was not whether the affidavit was flawless. The legal question was whether Fulton County met the demanding standard for return of property during an active investigation. Boulee concluded it did not, after amended filings, an evidentiary hearing, additional evidence, and supplemental briefing. Fulton County lost the immediate return fight. The Washington Examiner added context about the scale of the seizure and one notable observation from the bench. The scale of the January seizure is part of what made the fight so politically charged. Federal agents took more than 600 boxes of election records from a Fulton County election warehouse after obtaining a search warrant tied to alleged irregularities from the 2020 presidential election, a haul large enough to trigger an immediate fight over custody and control. Fulton County argued that losing physical custody of the originals harmed its authority, complicated public-records and litigation obligations, and created concerns about how local election materials could be handled by federal investigators. Boulee treated those concerns seriously, but the ruling turned on proof. The seizure happened years after the 2020 vote was conducted and certified, and the county did not show that federal custody of the originals would hinder future elections. The court also weighed the fact that Fulton County retained copies of the records. That undercut the claim that the county needed the originals back immediately or would suffer irreparable injury if the DOJ kept them while the investigation continued. Judge Boulee’s candid acknowledgment that the affidavit had flaws is notable, and Fulton County’s attorneys will no doubt point to that language going forward. But acknowledging imperfections and ordering the government to surrender evidence mid-investigation are two very different things. The court made clear that the legal standard for the latter was not met.