Federal Judge Dismisses Comey and James Cases, Citing Illegal Prosecutor Appointment

A federal judge has thrown out criminal cases against James Comey and Letitia James, ruling that Lindsey Halligan was unlawfully appointed as prosecutor — a major legal setback for Trump-era prosecutions.

A federal judge has stunned political observers by dismissing criminal cases against former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James, ruling that the prosecutor who brought the charges — Lindsey Halligan — was unlawfully appointed. The decision represents a major legal rebuke to the Trump-era Justice Department’s controversial prosecutions of two of President Donald Trump’s most persistent critics.

The dismissal was issued by U.S. District Judge Cameron McGowan Currie, who concluded that Halligan, a one-time White House aide with no prior prosecutorial experience, lacked the legal authority to serve as interim U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia. Because her appointment was invalid, the judge held, all of her actions in the case — including presenting evidence to grand juries and signing indictments — must be set aside. (CBS News)

In her detailed opinion, Judge Currie pointed to a key statutory issue: under federal law, the Attorney General’s power to appoint an interim U.S. Attorney is limited to 120 days, after which only a federal court may authorize someone to fill the role. (The Washington Post) Currie found that this limit had been exceeded and that Halligan’s subsequent designation violated both Section 546 of U.S. law and the Appointments Clause of the U.S. Constitution. (CBS News) As the judge put it, Halligan’s appointment was “defective,” rendering her entire prosecutorial record legally void. (The Washington Post)

The turmoil dates back to earlier in 2025, when Halligan was installed — at Donald Trump’s urging — after her predecessor, Erik Siebert, reportedly refused to bring the politically charged cases. (Al Jazeera) In just days, Halligan oversaw an indictment of Comey on charges of false statements and obstruction of Congress, and shortly after, an indictment against James for alleged mortgage fraud. (The Guardian) But according to Currie, because she lacked a lawful appointment, her actions had no legal standing. (CBS News)

Both Comey and James celebrated the ruling. Comey issued a video statement saying he was “grateful that the court ended the case against me, which was a prosecution based on malevolence and incompetence,” and framed the decision as vindication for the principle that no U.S. President can weaponize the Justice Department against political rivals. (Al Jazeera) James, meanwhile, called the dismissal a “victory” and said she would keep fighting for New Yorkers “in the face of these baseless charges.” (The Guardian)

Judge Currie’s order dismissed both indictments without prejudice, meaning they could be refiled. (The Guardian) However, the Comey case faces a significant obstacle: his lawyers argue that the statute of limitations has already expired, making re-prosecution unlikely. (The Guardian) In her ruling, the judge noted this issue, suggesting the timing could bar any future charges in his case. (The Washington Post)

Prompted by the dismissal, the Justice Department, under Trump-era Attorney General Pam Bondi, has said it will file an immediate appeal. (The Washington Post) Bondi defended Halligan, calling her “an excellent U.S. attorney” and promising to take “all available legal action.” (The Washington Post) According to reports, prosecutors may try to reauthorize the indictments under a new, legally appointed U.S. Attorney. (https://www.wdtv.com)

Legal experts say the case shines a harsh light on what they view as politicized appointments in the Trump-era DOJ. Halligan’s elevation to the top post in the Eastern District of Virginia without Senate confirmation or judicial appointment raised red flags, and other courts have recently challenged similar interim U.S. Attorney appointments in states including New Jersey, Nevada, and California. (The Washington Post) By invalidating her appointment, Currie’s ruling may set an important precedent on enforcing the limits of prosecutorial power.

Beyond the technical legal arguments, observers note a deeper political narrative: Comey and James have long been thorny figures for Trump. Comey, fired by Trump in 2017, has publicly criticized the former president's handling of the Russia investigation and other matters. (https://www.wdtv.com) Letitia James, who as New York AG won a massive civil fraud case against Trump and his business, has often clashed with him in court and in the media. (The Guardian) Many of their supporters argue that the charges brought against them were part of a broader campaign to punish political enemies.

Critics of the original prosecutions have called them retaliatory and unprofessional from the start. Legal filings from Comey and James alleged “grand jury irregularities,” missteps by Halligan in presenting evidence, and deep political motivations behind the charges. (The Washington Post) Judge Currie echoed some of those concerns, underscoring the risk of an executive branch bypassing democratic safeguards when installing prosecutors with partisan loyalty. (The Washington Post)

The ruling may also accelerate calls for reform in how interim U.S. Attorneys are appointed, especially when political pressure is involved. Congress could revisit the balance of power, or advocates may press for more transparency and stricter enforcement of Section 546’s 120-day limit. For now, though, Currie’s decision stands as a powerful rebuke of politically motivated prosecutions.

The fallout from this ruling is likely to be far-reaching. If the Justice Department appeals, the question of whether charges can be refiled could head to a higher court, potentially even the Supreme Court. The case raises fundamental constitutional questions about the Appointments Clause, executive power, and the independence of the Justice Department from political influence.

In the immediate term, though, Comey and James have secured a major legal reprieve. For Comey, recharging the case now seems legally dubious given the statute of limitations. For James, the door remains open — but any future indictment would need a fully lawful and properly appointed prosecutor.

Public reaction has been deeply divided. Supporters of Comey and James see the ruling as vindication of the justice system’s ability to check partisan overreach. Critics, particularly allies of the Trump-era Justice Department, argue they are being robbed of accountability. Meanwhile, civil rights and good-government groups are watching closely, saying the decision underscores the danger posed by politicized prosecutorial appointments.

This ruling therefore marks a critical moment in U.S. legal and political history. It underscores not only the importance of following proper procedures when appointing U.S. Attorneys but also the risks when those procedures are circumvented. It reminds citizens and officials alike that adherence to the rule of law matters, especially when powerful figures and politically charged prosecutions are at stake.

As the Justice Department weighs its next move, one thing is clear: Judge Currie’s decision will reverberate across courtrooms and political news desks for months to come.

---

James Comey, Letitia James, Lindsey Halligan, Trump prosecutor, DOJ controversy, judicial appointment, Appointments Clause, Section 546, political prosecutions, U.S. Attorney, legal news, Supreme Court implications, U.S. Justice Department, federal judge, court ruling, Trump era, rule of law, accountability