In a dramatic turn of events on November 24, 2025, a federal judge dismissed high-profile criminal cases against former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James, citing the unconstitutional appointment of the prosecutor who brought the charges. The ruling, delivered by U.S. District Judge Cameron McGowan Currie, has sent shockwaves through legal and political circles, raising questions about the boundaries of executive power and the independence of the U.S. justice system.
The cases against Comey and James had already drawn national attention for their political undertones. Both were indicted in October—Comey on charges of making false statements and obstructing a congressional proceeding related to his 2020 Senate Judiciary Committee testimony, and James on charges of bank fraud and making a false statement to a financial institution regarding a 2020 home purchase in Norfolk, Virginia. Both pleaded not guilty, vigorously denying any wrongdoing.
But the heart of the controversy lay not in the charges themselves, but in the manner in which they were brought. Lindsey Halligan, a former attorney for President Donald Trump with no prior prosecutorial experience, was appointed interim U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia after Trump ousted the previous officeholder, Erik Siebert. Halligan’s appointment was made over the objections of career prosecutors, raising immediate concerns about political interference. According to NBC News, Halligan was the sole prosecutor to present both cases to the grand jury and the only one to sign the indictments—an unusual and controversial move.
Judge Currie’s decision was unequivocal. “Because Ms. Halligan had no lawful authority to present the indictment, I will grant Mr. Comey’s motion and dismiss the indictment,” she wrote, adding that “all actions flowing from Ms. Halligan’s defective appointment, including securing and signing Mr. Comey’s indictment, were unlawful exercises of executive power and are hereby set aside.” The judge described Halligan as “a former White House aide with no prior prosecutorial experience,” emphasizing the unprecedented nature of the situation.
At the center of the legal dispute was a federal statute governing interim appointments. Under the law, the Attorney General may appoint an interim U.S. attorney for up to 120 days, after which the authority to appoint shifts to the judges of the relevant district. In this case, after U.S. Attorney Jessica Aber resigned on January 20, Siebert was appointed and served lawfully until May 21, 2025. When that 120-day window expired, the judges in the Eastern District of Virginia exercised their authority to keep Siebert in place. However, after Siebert’s forced resignation in September—following a pressure campaign from President Trump—Attorney General Pam Bondi appointed Halligan within 48 hours of a Trump social media post urging immediate prosecutions of Comey, James, and Rep. Adam Schiff.
Judge Currie rejected Bondi’s attempt to retroactively validate Halligan’s appointment, writing, “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.”
The White House and Justice Department have pushed back strongly. White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters, “It is our position that Lindsey Halligan is extremely qualified for this position, but more importantly, was legally appointed to it.” Attorney General Bondi, in a Memphis news conference, announced plans for an immediate appeal and defended Halligan as “an excellent attorney.”
The dismissals were issued “without prejudice,” meaning the cases could be refiled by a properly appointed U.S. attorney. However, the path forward is murky. Comey’s attorney, Patrick Fitzgerald, argued that the statute of limitations for his client’s case has already expired, preventing any refiling. “The ruling indicates that because the indictment is void, the statute of limitations has run and there can be no further indictment,” Fitzgerald said. The Justice Department, however, points to U.S. Code 3288, which allows a new indictment within six months of a dismissal even after the statute of limitations has expired. Comey’s lawyers counter that this grace period doesn’t apply since Halligan never had the power to indict in the first place—a position with which Judge Currie expressly agreed.
Comey, responding to the ruling, did not mince words. In a video posted to Instagram, he said, “I’m grateful that the court ended the case against me, which was a prosecution based on malevolence and incompetence and a reflection of what the Department of Justice has become under Donald Trump, which is heartbreaking.” He continued, “This case mattered to me personally, obviously, but it matters most because a message has to be sent that the president of the United States cannot use the Department of Justice to target his political enemies.”
Letitia James also welcomed the decision, 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 the sentiment, saying, “We will continue to challenge any further politically motivated charges through every lawful means available.”
The political undertones of the prosecutions have not gone unnoticed. According to ABC News, Halligan’s appointment came after Trump publicly urged Bondi to act “NOW!!!” to prosecute Comey, James, and others he viewed as political adversaries. Career prosecutors had reportedly advised against pursuing the cases, citing insufficient evidence. The judge’s ruling highlighted the dangers of executive overreach, with Currie noting the threat posed by allowing the president to use the Department of Justice as a tool against political enemies.
The repercussions of Currie’s decision may extend beyond these two cases. Other prosecutions initiated under Halligan’s tenure, including that of Kabul airport bombing suspect Mohammad Sharifullah, are now under scrutiny, with challenges to Halligan’s authority pending. The Justice Department is also appealing similar rulings that have disqualified U.S. attorneys in California and Nevada under the same 120-day rule, as reported by NBC News.
Legal experts suggest the government faces an uphill battle in overturning the ruling. Carl Tobias, a law professor at the University of Richmond, 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 judge’s skepticism of the government’s defense—characterizing the appointment issue as more than a mere “paperwork error”—underscored the gravity of the constitutional violation.
As the dust settles, one thing is clear: the saga has exposed deep rifts over the separation of powers and the politicization of the justice system. With appeals pending and the possibility of further indictments uncertain, the legal and political battles are far from over. For now, the judiciary’s intervention stands as a stark reminder of the checks and balances that underpin American democracy.
