James Comey and Letitia James. Composite: Bloomberg via Getty Images, AP
A federal judge has dismissed the criminal cases brought against former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James, ruling that the prosecutor behind both indictments lacked lawful authority to pursue them.
In an order issued Monday, U.S. District Judge Cameron Currie found that Lindsey Halligan — a former Trump attorney tapped to serve as interim U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia — was never legally appointed. As a result, the indictments she brought were void from the start.
The Women Post is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support our work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
Currie agreed with Comey’s argument that the prosecution was invalid because Halligan’s appointment had no constitutional footing.
“Because Ms. Halligan had no lawful authority to present the indictment, I will grant Mr. Comey’s motion and dismiss the indictment,” he wrote, concluding that any action undertaken by Halligan, including convening a grand jury, was an “unlawful exercise of executive power.” The judge noted she was “a former White House aide with no prior prosecutorial experience.”
A similar ruling was issued in the case targeting James, effectively wiping out both prosecutions.
The judge described the situation as “unique, if not unprecedented,” emphasizing that an unconstitutionally appointed prosecutor had acted entirely alone in securing two major indictments — a defect he said could not be cured.
Because Halligan was the sole attorney presenting evidence and signing both indictments at the direction of former President Donald Trump, Currie concluded the charges must be thrown out.
Attorney General Pam Bondi, speaking at a news conference in Memphis, sharply criticized the ruling and vowed that the Justice Department would “take all available legal action, including an immediate appeal.” She defended Halligan as “an excellent attorney.”
White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt maintained the administration’s position, asserting, “Lindsey Halligan was legally appointed.”
The U.S. attorney’s office declined comment, and Halligan herself did not immediately respond to inquiries.
Comey responded to the ruling with a video message on Instagram, calling the prosecution “malevolent and incompetent” and saying it reflected the degradation of the Justice Department under Trump.
“This case mattered to me personally,” he said, “but it matters most because it sends a message that the president cannot weaponize the Justice Department against political enemies.”
He added that he expects further targeting by Trump but remains “unafraid” and confident in an independent judiciary — “the gift from our founders that protects us from a would-be tyrant.”
Bondi dismissed Comey’s remarks, saying she was “not worried about someone who has been charged with a very serious crime,” calling his alleged conduct a betrayal of public trust.
James welcomed the dismissal.
James Comey has argued that the case against him was vindictive and personal. Dia Dipasupil / Getty Images
“I am heartened by today’s victory,” she said. “I remain fearless in the face of these baseless charges as I continue fighting for New Yorkers every single day.”
Her attorney, Abbe Lowell, said the ruling “acknowledges what’s been clear from the beginning — that the President went to extreme lengths to insert an ally to bring politically motivated charges after career prosecutors refused.”
Both cases were dismissed without prejudice, technically leaving the door open for prosecutors to attempt refiling. But Comey’s attorney, Patrick Fitzgerald, argued that because the indictments are void, the statute of limitations has already expired.
“There can be no further indictment,” he said.
The Justice Department disagrees, pointing to a federal statute that allows a six-month window to refile if an indictment is dismissed after the statute of limitations expires. Comey’s legal team countered that this provision does not apply when the original indictment was brought by someone with no lawful authority — a view Judge Currie explicitly endorsed.
Both Comey and James have pending motions seeking to dismiss the cases with prejudice, arguing the prosecutions were “selective and vindictive,” designed to carry out Trump’s political will.
Carl Tobias, a professor at the University of Richmond School of Law, told The Women Post the government faces steep odds.
“I think the government will do whatever it can to overturn this, but I don’t see how that’s going to happen,” he said.
Because Halligan handled these cases almost entirely alone, her invalid appointment had a devastating impact. Legal experts warn that the fallout could extend to other cases tied to her office.
One of those cases involves Kabul airport bombing suspect Mohammad Sharifullah, who recently challenged Halligan’s authority to participate in his prosecution. His indictment was obtained under her predecessor, and his challenge is still pending.
Meanwhile, a separate decision disqualifying Alina Habba as U.S. attorney in New Jersey has already caused a cascade of cases there to stall while appeals play out.
Judge Currie showed skepticism toward the Justice Department’s attempt to downplay Halligan’s appointment as a mere “paperwork error.” Attorneys for Comey insisted the issue was a “fatal flaw” that rendered the prosecution legally impossible.
Comey had been charged with making false statements to Congress and obstructing a congressional investigation. James faced charges of bank fraud and making a false statement to a financial institution. Both pleaded not guilty and denied any wrongdoing.
What made these indictments remarkable was Halligan’s role: she not only led both cases alone, but she overrode internal recommendations from other prosecutors who previously concluded there wasn’t enough evidence to charge either official — a fact The Women Post has previously reported.
Trump announced Halligan’s appointment on Sept. 20, just one day after forcing out Erik Siebert, his earlier pick for the Virginia post who refused to prosecute Comey and James.
Her appointment immediately raised questions because federal law limits interim U.S. attorneys to 120 days unless confirmed by the Senate. Siebert had exceeded that limit only because federal judges extended his term using their own statutory authority. After he was pushed out, attorneys for Comey and James argued that only those judges could choose his replacement — not Attorney General Pam Bondi.
The Justice Department insisted the office was “vacant” and that Halligan was properly appointed. Her nomination remains pending in the Senate.
Trump’s Truth Social post announcing Halligan’s appointment came shortly after he publicly demanded that Bondi and the Justice Department press ahead with prosecutions of Comey, James, and Democratic Rep. Adam Schiff, calling them “guilty as hell.”
Within days, Halligan — who had no prior prosecutorial background — brought the Comey case to the grand jury, just before the expiration of the five-year statute of limitations.
Judge Currie, appointed during the Clinton administration, handled the disqualification proceedings because judges in the Eastern District of Virginia would be directly involved in naming Halligan’s replacement.
The administration’s interpretation of the 120-day interim rule has already led to U.S. attorneys in California and Nevada being removed, with those rulings now on appeal.
The Women Post is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support our work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
