Judge Dismisses James Comey and Letitia James Indictments Over Prosecutor’s Unlawful Appointment

Why Were the Indictments Against Comey and James Dismissed?

On November 24, 2025, a federal judge handed down a decision that sent shockwaves through the legal and political landscape: the criminal indictments against former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James were dismissed. The reason? The prosecutor who brought these high-profile cases, Lindsey Halligan—a former Trump attorney—had been unlawfully appointed to her role as interim U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia.

Judge Cameron Currie, presiding over the case, found that Halligan’s appointment violated federal law, specifically Section 546, which governs U.S. attorney vacancies, and the Constitution’s Appointments Clause. Halligan, an insurance lawyer and former White House aide with no prior prosecutorial experience, was thrust into the role after President Donald Trump forced out his initial nominee, Erik Siebert. The process bypassed the required Senate confirmation and did not follow the protocols outlined by federal statute. As Currie wrote in her ruling, “Because Ms. Halligan had no lawful authority to present the indictment, I will grant Mr. Comey’s motion and dismiss the indictment.”

What Does This Mean for the Justice System?

The implications of Currie’s decision reach far beyond the individuals involved. In her 26-page ruling, the judge warned that allowing Halligan’s appointment to stand would set a dangerous precedent: “The implications of a contrary conclusion are extraordinary. It would mean the Government could send any private citizen off the street—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.” (BBC)

Halligan was the sole prosecutor to present the cases to the grand jury and to sign the indictments, a move described as “highly unusual.” Other prosecutors in her office had reportedly recommended against charging Comey and James, citing insufficient evidence. The unusual circumstances surrounding Halligan’s appointment and subsequent actions led Judge Currie to void all actions stemming from her “defective appointment,” declaring them unlawful exercises of executive power.

Reactions from Those Involved

Letitia James welcomed the dismissal, stating, “I am heartened by today’s victory and grateful for the prayers and support I have received from around the country. I remain fearless in the face of these baseless charges as I continue fighting for New Yorkers every single day.” Her attorney, Abbe Lowell, echoed this sentiment: “The judge’s order acknowledges what’s been clear about this case from the beginning. The President went to extreme measures to substitute one of his allies to bring these baseless charges after career prosecutors refused.”

James and Comey have maintained their innocence throughout, pleading not guilty to the charges—bank fraud and making false statements for James; making a false statement to Congress and obstructing a congressional investigation for Comey. Both have additional motions pending, arguing that the cases against them constitute “selective and vindictive” prosecution. These motions seek dismissal “with prejudice,” which would prevent prosecutors from reviving the charges.

The White House, meanwhile, issued a measured response. Spokeswoman Abigail Jackson stated, “The facts of the indictments against Comey and James have not changed and this will not be the final word on this matter.” The U.S. attorney’s office, as well as Halligan and the Justice Department, declined to comment.

Broader Ripple Effects and Legal Uncertainty

The dismissal of these indictments is not an isolated event. The legality of Halligan’s appointment is already being challenged in other cases, including the prosecution of Kabul airport bombing suspect Mohammad Sharifullah. Sharifullah’s motion questions Halligan’s authority to supervise his case, given that his indictment was brought by her predecessor.

Legal experts believe the government faces a steep uphill battle. Carl Tobias, Williams Chair in Law at the University of Richmond School of Law, told NBC News, “I think the government will do whatever it can to overturn this, but I don’t see how that’s going to happen.” The unique role Halligan played in the Comey and James cases—acting alone in securing and signing the indictments—was found to be a “fatal flaw.” Other U.S. attorneys in California and Nevada have also been disqualified due to similar procedural violations, leaving numerous cases in legal limbo.

The Justice Department maintains that Halligan’s appointment was valid, arguing in filings that her nomination remains pending before the Senate, and that the Attorney General lawfully appointed her as interim U.S. Attorney. However, lawyers for Comey and James counter that the authority to appoint a replacement after Siebert’s departure belonged to the federal judges of the Eastern District of Virginia, not the Attorney General. To rule otherwise, they argue, would allow indefinite evasion of Congress-mandated procedures.

The Political Backdrop

The political undertones of this legal saga are unmistakable. Halligan’s appointment followed a public push by Trump, who used social media to urge the Attorney General to move forward with prosecutions against Comey, James, and other perceived adversaries, including Democratic Senator Adam Schiff. Five days after Trump’s post praising Halligan as “a really good lawyer,” she presented the Comey case to a grand jury—just days before the statute of limitations was set to expire.

The judge’s skepticism of the Justice Department’s defense of Halligan was clear during a joint hearing with lawyers for Comey and James, where a prosecutor downplayed the issue as “a paperwork error.” Comey’s attorney disagreed, calling it a “fatal flaw.” Currie, a Bill Clinton appointee, presided over the case because local judges would have a role in selecting Halligan’s replacement.

Meanwhile, the Trump administration’s interpretation of the 120-day rule for interim U.S. attorneys has led to similar disqualifications in other states. The Justice Department is currently appealing these rulings, but the outcome remains uncertain.

Assessment: This episode exposes critical vulnerabilities in the appointment process for federal prosecutors and underscores the potential for politicization in high-stakes legal actions. Judge Currie’s decision not only invalidated the charges against Comey and James but also cast doubt on the integrity of cases handled under questionable appointments. As appeals and new motions loom, the case serves as a cautionary tale about the importance of adhering to the rule of law and the risks posed when executive power overrides established procedures.