In a dramatic turn of events this week, a federal judge dismissed high-profile criminal cases against former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James, ruling that the prosecutor who brought the charges was unlawfully appointed. The decision, delivered by U.S. District Judge Cameron McGowan Currie on November 25, 2025, has sent shockwaves through legal and political circles, raising urgent questions about the Justice Department’s internal processes, the future of the cases, and the broader issue of political influence in federal prosecutions.
At the heart of the controversy is Lindsey Halligan, a former White House aide with no prior experience as a federal prosecutor, who was named interim U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia in September 2025. According to CNN and the Brooklyn Eagle, Halligan’s appointment came after the Trump administration forced out her predecessor, Erik Siebert, under mounting pressure to bring charges against Comey and James—two frequent critics of former President Donald Trump.
The legal challenge focused on the process by which Halligan was installed. U.S. attorneys are typically nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate, but there is a provision for interim appointments. The law allows the Attorney General to make a single temporary appointment for up to 120 days. If no Senate-confirmed U.S. attorney is in place after that period, federal judges in the district are empowered to select a replacement. In this case, Halligan replaced an interim U.S. attorney who had already served more than 120 days, a move that Comey’s and James’s lawyers argued was outside the bounds of the law.
Judge Currie agreed, writing in her order, “The Attorney General’s attempt to install Ms. Halligan as Interim U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia was invalid.” She went further, stating that “all actions flowing from Ms. Halligan’s defective appointment, including the indictments against Comey and James, were unlawful exercises of executive power and are hereby set aside.” The judge’s ruling emphasized that allowing the government to stack successive 120-day appointments would effectively let officials bypass the Senate confirmation process indefinitely—an outcome she called unacceptable.
The cases against Comey and James were dismissed “without prejudice,” meaning prosecutors could theoretically bring the charges again. However, the road ahead is fraught with obstacles. For Comey, the statute of limitations—the legal deadline for filing charges—expired at the end of September 2025, just days after Halligan rushed the case to a grand jury. While federal law sometimes allows prosecutors to re-indict within six months of a dismissal, even after the statute of limitations, Comey’s lawyers argue that the judge’s ruling makes the original indictment void, so the deadline cannot be extended. As Judge Currie noted, “if the earlier indictment is void, there is no legitimate peg on which to extend the deadline.”
Letitia James’s situation is different; the Justice Department could seek a new indictment against her, provided a lawfully appointed prosecutor brings the case. Still, any attempt to revive the charges would face intense scrutiny and likely a barrage of legal challenges, especially given the widespread publicity and claims of improper conduct by prosecutors.
Jessica Levinson, a professor at LMU Loyola Law School and legal analyst for Spectrum 1 News, explained, “Lindsey Halligan, the appointed U.S. Attorney, had no authority to bring these cases.” She emphasized that the dismissals stemmed directly from the Trump administration’s controversial appointment practices, which were successfully challenged in court.
The charges themselves were serious. Comey was accused of lying to Congress about whether he authorized an associate to act as an anonymous source for the media, while James faced allegations of bank fraud and making false statements to a financial institution in connection with a 2020 home purchase in Norfolk, Virginia. Both pleaded not guilty and claimed the prosecutions were politically motivated—a view echoed by many observers and, notably, by the defendants themselves.
James, in a statement after the charges were dropped, said, “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.”
Comey, for his part, posted a video expressing gratitude for the court’s decision and condemning the politicization of the Justice Department. “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 said. He went on to urge Americans to recognize the dangers of using the Justice Department as a tool for political retribution: “I don’t care what your politics are, you have to see that as fundamentally un-American and a threat to the rule of law that keeps all of us free.”
The Justice Department, however, is not backing down. Attorney General Pam Bondi, speaking at a press conference in Memphis, Tennessee, vowed to “take all available legal action, including an immediate appeal, to hold Letitia James and James Comey accountable for their unlawful conduct.” White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt echoed this stance, confirming that the department will appeal the judge’s ruling.
The fallout from Currie’s decision has sown confusion within the Justice Department. According to CNN, prosecutors in the Eastern District of Virginia were initially told that First Assistant Robert McBride would take over as the top prosecutor authorized to sign filings. But this instruction was quickly reversed—prosecutors were soon told to continue listing Halligan, despite her appointment being ruled invalid. The uncertainty over who had authority to proceed with filings left the office in “a state of chaos,” with some career prosecutors worried about the legality of any actions taken under Halligan’s name.
Judge Currie’s ruling also referenced a recent case involving former President Trump’s classified documents charges, where a special counsel was found unlawfully appointed, highlighting the broader implications of improper appointments within the Justice Department. The judge cited a 1986 legal memo from then-Deputy Assistant Attorney General Samuel Alito, supporting the view that only one temporary appointment is allowed before judges must step in.
Underlying the legal wrangling are persistent allegations that the prosecutions of Comey and James were driven by political animus. Both have been outspoken critics of Trump and have faced repeated public attacks from the former president. Trump’s social media posts, including one in which he declared, “They’re all guilty as hell, but nothing is going to be done,” have been cited by defense attorneys as evidence of a politicized prosecution. The Justice Department, for its part, insists that these posts did not direct official action but merely reflected Trump’s personal opinions.
As the Justice Department prepares its appeal and considers next steps, the cases of Comey and James have become emblematic of deeper debates about the independence of federal prosecutors, the limits of executive power, and the safeguards intended to prevent political abuse of the justice system. For now, the fate of these cases—and the reputations of all involved—hangs in the balance, with the eyes of the nation watching closely.
