In a significant blow to the Trump administration’s Justice Department, a federal judge on Monday dismissed criminal charges brought against former FBI chief James Comey and New York State Attorney General Letitia James, finding that the prosecutor put in charge of the cases was not lawfully installed.
The ruling, from U.S. District Judge Cameron McGown Currie, would wipe out two politically sensitive prosecutions that former President Donald Trump had repeatedly urged the Justice Department to pursue. Both cases targeted public officials who had publicly criticized Trump and were involved in investigations of his conduct.
Judge Rules Trump-Appointed Prosecutor Had “No Legal Authority”
The prosecutions were brought by Lindsey Halligan, a onetime personal attorney to Trump who was installed in September as interim U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia. Halligan, who had no prosecutorial experience, was named after Trump directed Attorney General Pam Bondi to oust prior U.S. Attorney Erik Siebert, who declined to proceed because there wasn’t enough evidence.
In her ruling, Judge Currie wrote that Halligan “had no legal authority” to issue indictments against either Comey or James. The judge ultimately ruled that Halligan’s appointment was unconstitutional under the Appointments Clause of the U.S. Constitution and went beyond the limits set by federal law on interim U.S. Attorneys.
The judge dismissed both cases “without prejudice,” a legal term allowing the Justice Department to refile them in the future — but only under a lawfully appointed prosecutor.
A Politically Charged Legal Battle
The dismissed cases had drawn national attention, in part because Trump had publicly demanded legal action against both Comey and Letitia James:
James Comey headed the FBI during the early phases of the investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election.
As attorney general, Letitia James led both civil and criminal investigations into Trump’s business empire.
Attorneys for both Comey and James argued the prosecutions were “vindictive” and politically driven, citing Trump’s repeated public attacks on each official.
Appointment Process Under Scrutiny
The case has been especially closely watched by legal experts because it epitomizes concerns about how the Trump administration employed temporary appointments to skirt Senate confirmation.
Federal law permits the Attorney General to appoint an interim U.S. Attorney for 120 days. After that time has elapsed, if the Senate has not confirmed a replacement, the district court may appoint an interim prosecutor.
Bondi had already exercised this authority to appoint Siebert for 120 days. When Siebert declined to pursue the politically charged cases, she replaced him with Halligan — a move Comey’s and James’ legal teams argued was an illegal attempt to install a loyalist indefinitely without Senate approval.
Bondi had attempted to justify the appointment by naming Halligan a “special attorney” assigned to the cases and claiming to ratify the indictments after the fact, but Judge Currie expressed strong skepticism about the legality and the timing of those actions.
During a hearing on November 13, Judge Currie repeatedly questioned why the Justice Department would need to take such extraordinary steps if Halligan’s appointment were legitimate.
Indictments Thrown Out, But Future Uncertain
It charged Comey with making false statements and obstructing Congress, and James with bank fraud and making false statements to a financial institution. Both pleaded not guilty.
Although the dismissals represent a victory for the defense, technically the Justice Department could try to revive the cases. But that would require a new prosecutor and renewed review of the evidence — a process that legal analysts say is unlikely to succeed given earlier refusals by career prosecutors to pursue the charges.
Broader Implications for the Justice Department
The ruling is widely viewed as a rebuke to the political pressure on federal law enforcement. It raises larger questions about how far a president may go in directing the Justice Department and whether the Appointment Clause can be exploited to install loyalists for politically motivated prosecutions. While the Justice Department has not commented, legal observers predict more fights over the limits of political authority and judicial independence in a case involving two of Trump’s most outspoken detractors.
