Federal Judge Dismisses Criminal Cases Against Comey and James Over Prosecutor Appointment

Comey and James Win Dismissal After Court Rules Prosecutor Appointment Unlawful

WASHINGTON (Journos News) A federal judge on Monday dismissed criminal cases against former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James, citing the illegal appointment of the prosecutor who filed the charges at the urging of former President Donald Trump.

The decision, issued by U.S. District Judge Cameron McGowan Currie, halts two high-profile prosecutions targeting prominent critics of Trump, delivering a sharp legal rebuke of the administration’s effort to install a loyalist prosecutor willing to pursue politically sensitive cases.

The rulings do not address the substance of the allegations against Comey or James. Instead, they focus on Lindsey Halligan’s appointment as interim U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia. Defense lawyers argued that the Trump administration lacked the legal authority to make the appointment. Currie agreed, concluding that the cases could not proceed under Halligan’s leadership.

“All actions flowing from Ms. Halligan’s defective appointment, including securing and signing the indictments, were unlawful exercises of executive power and are hereby set aside,” Currie wrote.

A White House spokesperson said the rulings would “not be the final word on the matter,” while Attorney General Pam Bondi announced at an unrelated news conference that the Justice Department intends to pursue an “immediate appeal.” The possibility remains for prosecutors to refile the charges, the judge noted.

Indictments challenged on multiple fronts

Halligan’s appointment was one of several challenges to the indictments. Both Comey and James have sought to dismiss the cases, arguing the prosecutions were vindictive and emblematic of a politicized Justice Department.

Comey’s lawyers highlighted previous findings of grand jury irregularities and missteps in the case, while James’s team cited “outrageous government conduct” leading up to her indictment.

“I am grateful that the court ended the case against me, which was a prosecution based on malevolence and incompetence and a reflection of what the Justice Department has become under Donald Trump,” Comey said in a video statement. He has pleaded not guilty to charges of making a false statement and obstructing Congress.

James, a Democrat facing mortgage fraud allegations to which she has pleaded not guilty, expressed relief in a statement. “I am heartened by today’s victory and grateful for the prayers and support I have received from around the country,” she said.

The controversy over Halligan’s appointment

Currie’s rulings focused on the unusual mechanism used to appoint Halligan, a former White House aide with no prosecutorial experience, to a key Justice Department position. She replaced Erik Siebert, a veteran prosecutor and interim U.S. attorney who resigned under pressure from the Trump administration to pursue charges against Comey and James.

Trump publicly called for Halligan’s appointment, urging Bondi to take swift action against his political opponents. Comey was indicted three days after Halligan was sworn in, and James was charged two weeks later.

Federal law allows attorneys general to appoint an interim U.S. attorney for 120 days. Once that period expires, federal judges in the district have exclusive authority to appoint a successor. Defense lawyers argued that the Trump administration bypassed this process, making Halligan’s appointment invalid.

“The 120-day clock began running with Mr. Siebert’s appointment on January 21, 2025. When that clock expired on May 21, 2025, so too did the Attorney General’s appointment authority,” Currie wrote. “Consequently, I conclude that the Attorney General’s attempt to install Ms. Halligan as Interim U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia was invalid.”

The Justice Department had attempted to protect the indictments by designating Halligan as a “Special Attorney” retroactively. Currie rejected this move, saying such a designation could not retroactively validate an unlawful appointment.

“The implications of a contrary conclusion are extraordinary,” Currie wrote. “It would mean the Government could send any private citizen — attorney or not — into the grand jury room to secure an indictment so long as the Attorney General gives her approval after the fact. That cannot be the law.”

Dismissals without prejudice leave options open

While the defendants requested that the cases be dismissed with prejudice, preventing refiling, Currie dismissed the cases without prejudice. This leaves prosecutors the option to refile charges, though the approaching statute of limitations may limit action, particularly in Comey’s case.

Patrick Fitzgerald, one of Comey’s lawyers, noted that the indictment being void could mean the statute of limitations has run, preventing further prosecution.

Similar rulings in New Jersey, Los Angeles, and Nevada have found other interim U.S. attorneys unlawfully appointed but allowed the cases brought by their offices to continue. Lawyers for Comey and James argued that Currie’s decision needed to be broader, as Halligan alone presented evidence to the grand juries.

Longstanding tensions with Trump

Comey has been a longstanding critic of Trump, particularly following his tenure as FBI director overseeing the 2016 Russia investigation. Trump fired Comey in May 2017, citing dissatisfaction with his handling of the inquiry.

James has also been a frequent target of Trump’s criticism, especially after winning a substantial judgment against him and the Trump Organization for inflating real estate values on financial documents. An appeals court later overturned the fine but upheld a lower court’s finding of fraud.

The dismissals mark a significant procedural victory for both Comey and James, highlighting ongoing debates over the limits of presidential influence over Justice Department appointments.