Judge Dismisses James Comey and Letitia James Cases Over Unlawful Prosecutor Appointment
A federal judge has dismissed the criminal indictments 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 marks a significant legal setback for the Justice Department and a rebuke of what critics have described as politically motivated prosecutions.
On Monday, U.S. District Judge Cameron McG Currie invalidated both indictments, stating that the appointment of Lindsey Halligan as interim U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia was improper. Halligan, a former White House aide with no prior prosecutorial experience, was installed by the Justice Department just days before the indictments were filed. Judge Currie found that her appointment violated federal law, which requires either Senate confirmation or a court appointment for interim U.S. attorneys after a 120-day window.
“I conclude that all actions stemming from Ms. Halligan’s flawed appointment, including the acquisition and signing of Ms. James’s indictment, represent unlawful exercises of executive authority and must be annulled,” Judge Currie wrote in his order. A similar rationale was applied to Comey’s case.
The dismissals come after months of legal wrangling. Comey and James had argued that their prosecutions were not only procedurally flawed but also politically motivated. Comey’s legal team contended that the charges were a form of “vindictive prosecution,” pointing to President Trump’s repeated public criticism of Comey and James. James, in particular, has been a frequent target of Trump’s ire, especially after winning a major civil fraud case against the Trump Organization.
The Justice Department had defended Halligan’s appointment, arguing that the grand jury’s decision was based on the facts and law, and that the indictment had been ratified by a higher-ranking official. However, Judge Currie questioned the validity of that ratification, noting that a section of the grand jury proceedings was missing and could not be explained by prosecutors.
Legal experts say the ruling could have broader implications for the independence of federal prosecutions. Ephraim McDowell, one of Comey’s defense attorneys, warned that if the government were allowed to proceed with such appointments, it could undermine the requirement for Senate confirmation of U.S. attorneys.
The dismissals are without prejudice, meaning the Justice Department could theoretically refile the charges with a properly appointed prosecutor. However, the statute of limitations for Comey’s alleged crimes has now expired, making it unlikely that new charges will be brought against him. For James, the possibility remains, but the legal and political hurdles have been significantly raised.
The case has drawn national attention as a test of prosecutorial independence and the rule of law. Judge Currie’s decision is seen as a strong rebuke of what he described as a “disturbing pattern of profound investigative missteps” by the Justice Department.
Both Comey and James have maintained their innocence throughout the proceedings. Comey was accused of lying to Congress and obstructing a congressional investigation during his 2020 testimony, while James faced charges related to her role in the Trump Organization civil fraud case. The dismissals bring an end, at least for now, to what many viewed as a politically charged legal battle.