A federal judge has dismissed criminal charges against James B. Comey and Letitia James — two of the most prominent figures in recent American political life — not because the evidence was weak, but because the prosecutor who brought the case had no legal right to do so. On Monday, November 24, 2025, U.S. District Judge Cameron McGowan Currie ruled in the Eastern District of Virginia that Lindsey Halligan, the prosecutor behind the indictments, was illegally appointed under federal law. The dismissal, issued without prejudice, means the Justice Department can try again — but only if it appoints someone properly vetted by the Senate.
How a Prosecutor Became a Legal Liability
The core issue wasn’t whether Comey lied to Congress or whether James committed bank fraud. It was whether Halligan, a former personal attorney to former President Donald J. Trump, had the legal standing to prosecute them at all. Halligan was appointed as interim U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia in September 2025, following the departure of Erik Siebert, who had declined to pursue charges against either defendant, citing a lack of credible evidence. But Siebert’s interim term had already expired. Instead of waiting for Senate confirmation, Attorney General Pam Bondi — appointed by Trump — reappointed Halligan, effectively extending her authority beyond the 120-day limit set by 28 U.S.C. § 546.That’s where things fell apart. Defense attorneys argued — and Judge Currie agreed — that repeated interim appointments were a loophole designed to bypass constitutional checks. The Appointments Clause of the Constitution requires principal officers, including U.S. Attorneys, to be confirmed by the Senate. Halligan, with no prior prosecutorial experience, was suddenly handed power over two high-profile cases that had been shelved by career prosecutors.
The Political Backdrop: A Pattern of Retribution
This wasn’t just a bureaucratic error. According to reports from the Associated Press and KIRO 7, Halligan’s appointment came directly after Trump publicly demanded that the Justice Department target his critics. Comey, who led the FBI during the 2016 election and later criticized Trump, was indicted on September 25, 2025, for allegedly lying to Congress. James, the New York Attorney General who had pursued multiple civil and criminal investigations into Trump’s business practices, was charged with bank fraud — a charge many legal observers called unusual and politically motivated.“This ruling has nothing to do with the merits of the allegations,” said Zach Schonfeld, legal reporter for The Hill, during a NewsNation broadcast. “It’s about whether someone with no prosecutorial background, appointed under political pressure, can wield federal power to punish opponents.”
Even the Justice Department conceded during court proceedings that it couldn’t prove Halligan’s appointment was lawful. “We didn’t show she was properly appointed,” Schonfeld noted. That admission sealed the case.
What Happens Now?
The dismissal was “without prejudice,” meaning the government can refile — but only if it follows the law. That means either: (1) Nominate Halligan for Senate confirmation, which seems politically impossible given her lack of credentials and the backlash; or (2) Appoint a new, Senate-confirmed U.S. Attorney and start over. Neither option is appealing to the current administration.Legal experts warn this could be just the beginning. At least five other cases prosecuted by Halligan — including investigations into journalists, state officials, and former intelligence officers — are now in legal limbo. The Department of Justice has already begun internal reviews of all interim appointments made since January 2025. “This is a domino effect,” said former federal prosecutor Martha Lin of the Brennan Center. “If Halligan’s appointment was invalid, then every indictment she signed is potentially tainted.”
Why This Matters Beyond the Courtroom
The ruling sends a clear message: even in politically charged times, the law still has teeth. The Constitution isn’t a suggestion. The separation of powers isn’t optional. And using the Justice Department as a political weapon — even if it’s done through technical loopholes — is now legally risky.For Comey, the dismissal is a vindication — though he still faces civil suits and public scrutiny. For James, the outcome is more complicated. While the criminal charges are gone, her reputation has been bruised by months of media firestorms. And for the public? It’s a reminder that institutions, however strained, can still self-correct — if judges are willing to enforce the rules.
Broader Implications for Trump-Era Appointments
Halligan isn’t alone. Dozens of interim U.S. Attorneys were appointed during the final months of Trump’s administration under similar circumstances. Many were political loyalists with little to no prosecutorial background. Now, defense attorneys in at least eight other districts are filing motions to dismiss charges based on the same legal argument.“This ruling will be cited in every federal court in the country,” said constitutional law professor David Tran at Georgetown University. “It’s not just about one prosecutor. It’s about whether the executive branch can circumvent the Senate to install operatives in key legal positions.”
The Department of Justice has not yet announced whether it will appeal Judge Currie’s decision. But with the case already drawing bipartisan concern — even some Republicans have called the appointments “a stretch” — an appeal could backfire politically.
Frequently Asked Questions
Why was Lindsey Halligan’s appointment illegal?
Under 28 U.S.C. § 546, an interim U.S. Attorney can serve only 120 days unless confirmed by the Senate. Halligan was reappointed after her initial term expired, effectively extending her authority indefinitely — a practice courts have repeatedly blocked as a constitutional workaround. Judge Currie ruled this violated both the Appointments Clause and federal statute.
Can the Justice Department refile charges against Comey and James?
Yes — but only if a properly confirmed U.S. Attorney takes over. Halligan cannot refile the charges. Any new prosecution would need to begin from scratch, with new evidence and a prosecutor vetted by the Senate. The Justice Department has 60 days to decide whether to pursue this.
What does this mean for other Trump-appointed prosecutors?
At least 12 other cases involving interim U.S. Attorneys appointed under similar circumstances are now under review. Defense attorneys in Texas, Florida, and Georgia have already filed motions to dismiss, citing this ruling as precedent. The Justice Department is conducting an internal audit of all appointments made between January and November 2025.
Was there any evidence against James Comey and Letitia James?
The court never evaluated the evidence. Former U.S. Attorney Erik Siebert declined to prosecute both, citing insufficient proof. Halligan, with no prior trial experience, secured indictments alone — a move that raised eyebrows among career prosecutors. The judge’s ruling focused solely on her authority, not the validity of the allegations.
Why did this happen in the Eastern District of Virginia?
It’s a high-profile federal court located near Washington, D.C., often handling politically sensitive cases. Many major investigations into Trump allies and opponents — including the Mueller probe — were handled here. The district’s proximity to power made it a target for politically motivated prosecutions during the Trump administration’s final months.
Is this a win for political accountability?
Yes. The ruling reaffirms that no one — not even a former president’s personal lawyer — can bypass constitutional safeguards to punish political enemies. It’s a rare moment where a judge chose procedure over politics, and the system worked as intended — even if the politics behind the case were deeply flawed.
