On November 24, 2025, a federal judge delivered a seismic jolt to the U.S. Department of Justice’s efforts to prosecute two of President Donald Trump’s most prominent adversaries, former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James. In a pair of rulings that have reverberated through legal and political circles alike, U.S. District Judge Cameron McGowan Currie dismissed the criminal indictments against both men, citing the unlawful appointment of the prosecutor who brought the cases. The decision, while technical in its legal reasoning, has profound implications for the ongoing battle over the independence of federal law enforcement and the limits of executive power.
At the heart of the matter was Lindsey Halligan, a former White House aide with no prior prosecutorial experience, who was appointed as interim U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia after her predecessor, Erik Siebert, resigned in September 2025. According to The Associated Press, Siebert had been serving as interim U.S. attorney since January 2025, initially appointed for a 120-day period by the Attorney General. When that period expired in May, district judges stepped in to reappoint Siebert, as required by federal law. But after Siebert’s resignation, the Trump administration bypassed the judiciary’s authority and installed Halligan, a move defense attorneys for Comey and James immediately challenged.
Judge Currie’s ruling was unequivocal. “All actions flowing from Ms. Halligan’s defective appointment, including securing and signing the indictments, were unlawful exercises of executive power and are hereby set aside,” she wrote in her decision, as reported by The Hill. The judge further warned that permitting such appointments without proper authority would set a dangerous precedent: “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 dismissals were rendered “without prejudice,” a legal term that means the Department of Justice could, in theory, refile the charges if it corrects the procedural defects. As The Conversation notes, this distinction matters: a dismissal “with prejudice” would have permanently barred the government from bringing the cases again. But the path forward for prosecutors is anything but clear, especially in Comey’s case, where the statute of limitations has likely expired. Judge Currie herself observed that “while the statute of limitations is generally suspended when a valid indictment has been filed, an invalid indictment, like the one against Comey, would not have the same effect.”
For Comey, the stakes are particularly acute. He had been indicted just days before the five-year statute of limitations on his alleged offenses—making a false statement and obstructing Congress—was set to expire. With the indictment now void, his lawyers argue that the government’s window to prosecute him has closed for good. “This decision further indicates that because the indictment is void, the statute of limitations has run and there can be no further indictment,” said Comey’s attorney, Patrick Fitzgerald, in a statement to The Associated Press.
Letitia James, who had pleaded not guilty to mortgage fraud allegations, faces a slightly different legal landscape. Prosecutors could still attempt to refile charges against her, provided a properly appointed U.S. attorney brings the case. Yet, as legal experts interviewed by The Hill point out, any renewed prosecution would have to contend with lingering questions about the impartiality of the process and the possibility of further procedural missteps.
The political overtones of the case are impossible to ignore. Both Comey and James have long been thorns in President Trump’s side. Comey, appointed FBI director by President Barack Obama in 2013, oversaw the investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election before being fired by Trump in 2017. James, meanwhile, secured a headline-grabbing judgment against Trump and the Trump Organization in a civil fraud case, though an appeals court later overturned the massive fine while upholding the underlying finding of fraud.
In statements following the dismissals, both Comey and James framed the prosecutions as politically motivated. Comey, in a video message, called the case against him “a prosecution based on malevolence and incompetence and a reflection of what the Justice Department has become under Donald Trump, which is heartbreaking.” James echoed this sentiment, saying she was “fearless in the face of these baseless charges as I continue fighting for New Yorkers every single day.”
The Trump administration, for its part, has doubled down. Speaking to reporters aboard Air Force One, President Trump described Halligan as “great” and dismissed the judge’s ruling as a mere “technicality,” despite Currie’s explicit citation of the law. Attorney General Pam Bondi vowed at a news conference that the Justice Department would pursue “an immediate appeal,” signaling that the administration has no intention of backing down. A White House spokeswoman told The Associated Press that the rulings will “not be the final word on the matter.”
Legal scholars and former prosecutors remain divided on the prospects for any future prosecutions. Jackie Kelly, a former federal prosecutor, told The Hill that while the DOJ could theoretically reindict James, “with respect to James Comey’s case, there’s a real question about whether they even can.” The judge’s rulings have also left open the possibility of further legal challenges, particularly if the Justice Department tries to circumvent the appointment process by rebranding Halligan as a “special attorney”—a move Currie has already indicated would likely be ineffective.
The broader implications of the case are already being debated in legal circles. Some see the episode as a cautionary tale about the dangers of politicizing federal law enforcement, while others argue it underscores the importance of adhering to the procedural safeguards that underpin the justice system. Representative Glenn Ivey, a former prosecutor, remarked, “I mean, it’s hard to imagine a stronger vindictive prosecution set of facts than you’ve got here. I mean, the president himself is ordering the attorney general to bring the charges, basically. And he’s been after Comey—and James too—for years.”
Yet for all the legal wrangling and political drama, the future remains uncertain. The Department of Justice may appeal Judge Currie’s decision, seek to refile the charges with a properly appointed prosecutor, or simply let the cases fade into history. For Comey, it appears the statute of limitations has likely run out, making further prosecution all but impossible. For James, the door remains slightly ajar—but any renewed effort will be watched with intense scrutiny.
In the end, Judge Currie’s ruling serves as a powerful reminder that even in the most high-profile cases, the rule of law and proper procedure cannot be sidestepped, no matter how heated the political climate or how powerful the players involved.
