Federal Judge Dismisses Cases Against Comey and James Over Unlawful Appointment
Published 24 November 2025
Highlights
- A federal judge dismissed criminal cases against James Comey and Letitia James due to the unlawful appointment of prosecutor Lindsey Halligan.
- Judge Cameron Currie ruled that Halligan's appointment violated federal statutes, rendering her actions as interim US attorney invalid.
- The cases were dismissed "without prejudice," allowing for potential refiling by the Department of Justice.
- Both Comey and James described the charges as politically motivated efforts by the Trump administration.
- The White House plans to appeal the decision, asserting Halligan's appointment was legal.
-
Rewritten Article
Federal Judge Dismisses Cases Against Comey and James Over Unlawful Appointment
In a significant legal development, a federal judge has dismissed criminal charges against former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James, citing the unlawful appointment of the prosecutor who brought the cases. Judge Cameron Currie ruled that Lindsey Halligan, appointed by former President Donald Trump as interim US attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, lacked the legal authority to present the indictments.
Unlawful Appointment and Legal Implications
Judge Currie's decision, delivered on Monday, highlighted that Halligan's appointment violated federal statutes governing interim US attorneys. The law allows the attorney general to appoint an interim prosecutor for 120 days, a period that had expired before Halligan's appointment on September 22. Consequently, all actions taken by Halligan, including the indictments against Comey and James, were deemed unlawful exercises of executive power.
Political Context and Reactions
Both Comey and James have consistently denied any wrongdoing, characterizing the charges as politically motivated attempts by the Trump administration to target them for their opposition to the former president. Comey, who was charged with making false statements, expressed relief at the ruling, stating, "This case mattered to me personally, but it matters most because a message has to be sent that the president cannot use the Department of Justice to target political enemies."
Letitia James, charged with mortgage fraud, echoed similar sentiments, declaring her commitment to continue her work for New Yorkers. "I remain fearless in the face of these baseless charges," she stated.
Potential for Refiling and Government Response
The dismissal of the cases "without prejudice" leaves open the possibility for the Department of Justice to refile charges, should a properly appointed prosecutor be named. However, the statute of limitations for Comey's alleged crime may complicate future proceedings.
The White House, through Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt, announced plans to appeal the dismissal, arguing that Halligan's appointment was lawful. Leavitt also accused Judge Currie of attempting to shield Comey and James from accountability.
-
Scenario Analysis
The dismissal of charges against Comey and James underscores ongoing tensions between the judiciary and the executive branch, particularly concerning the appointment of federal prosecutors. If the Department of Justice chooses to refile charges, it will need to ensure compliance with federal appointment statutes to avoid similar legal challenges. Additionally, the appeal process could further politicize the cases, potentially impacting public perception of the Department of Justice's independence. Legal experts suggest that the outcome of this case may set a precedent for future disputes over the appointment and authority of interim federal prosecutors.
In a significant legal development, a federal judge has dismissed criminal charges against former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James, citing the unlawful appointment of the prosecutor who brought the cases. Judge Cameron Currie ruled that Lindsey Halligan, appointed by former President Donald Trump as interim US attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, lacked the legal authority to present the indictments.
Unlawful Appointment and Legal Implications
Judge Currie's decision, delivered on Monday, highlighted that Halligan's appointment violated federal statutes governing interim US attorneys. The law allows the attorney general to appoint an interim prosecutor for 120 days, a period that had expired before Halligan's appointment on September 22. Consequently, all actions taken by Halligan, including the indictments against Comey and James, were deemed unlawful exercises of executive power.
Political Context and Reactions
Both Comey and James have consistently denied any wrongdoing, characterizing the charges as politically motivated attempts by the Trump administration to target them for their opposition to the former president. Comey, who was charged with making false statements, expressed relief at the ruling, stating, "This case mattered to me personally, but it matters most because a message has to be sent that the president cannot use the Department of Justice to target political enemies."
Letitia James, charged with mortgage fraud, echoed similar sentiments, declaring her commitment to continue her work for New Yorkers. "I remain fearless in the face of these baseless charges," she stated.
Potential for Refiling and Government Response
The dismissal of the cases "without prejudice" leaves open the possibility for the Department of Justice to refile charges, should a properly appointed prosecutor be named. However, the statute of limitations for Comey's alleged crime may complicate future proceedings.
The White House, through Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt, announced plans to appeal the dismissal, arguing that Halligan's appointment was lawful. Leavitt also accused Judge Currie of attempting to shield Comey and James from accountability.
What this might mean
The dismissal of charges against Comey and James underscores ongoing tensions between the judiciary and the executive branch, particularly concerning the appointment of federal prosecutors. If the Department of Justice chooses to refile charges, it will need to ensure compliance with federal appointment statutes to avoid similar legal challenges. Additionally, the appeal process could further politicize the cases, potentially impacting public perception of the Department of Justice's independence. Legal experts suggest that the outcome of this case may set a precedent for future disputes over the appointment and authority of interim federal prosecutors.
