Judge Dismisses Indictments Against Comey and New York AG James

Federal Judge Dismisses Indictments Against Comey and James, Citing Invalid Prosecutor Appointment

A federal judge on Monday dismissed the indictments against former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James, ruling that they were illegitimately brought by an improperly appointed U.S. attorney.

Judge Cameron Currie, a Clinton appointee, threw out the false statements charges against Comey and bank fraud charges against James without prejudice, meaning prosecutors could potentially refile the charges in the future.

“I conclude that the Attorney General’s attempt to install Ms. [Lindsey] Halligan as Interim U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia was invalid and that Ms. Halligan has been unlawfully serving in that role since September 22, 2025,” Currie wrote in her decision.

The ruling deals a significant blow to two of the highest-profile criminal cases brought against perceived political opponents of President Donald Trump. The Department of Justice is expected to appeal the decision, according to White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt.

“We believe the attorney in this case, Lindsey Halligan, is not only extremely qualified for this position but she was in fact legally appointed,” Leavitt told Fox News. “And I know the Department of Justice will be appealing this in very short order.”

The legal dispute centered on the appointment process for Halligan, a former White House aide and insurance lawyer with no prior prosecutorial experience, who was installed to lead one of the most prominent federal court districts in the country. Trump had removed the previous interim U.S. attorney, Erik Siebert, and urged Attorney General Pam Bondi to replace him with Halligan.

Judge Currie determined that Siebert’s interim term had already expired under law, meaning that Virginia federal judges—not the Attorney General—were responsible for appointing a temporary U.S. attorney until Trump could get a nominee confirmed by the Senate.

The ruling highlights the ongoing challenges the Trump administration has faced in securing Senate confirmations for U.S. attorneys in Democratic-leaning states. Similar judicial decisions have recently disqualified presidential appointees in California, New Jersey, and Nevada.

The cases against Comey and James drew particular scrutiny because of their timing and circumstances. Trump had publicly called for swift action against Comey as the statute of limitations in his case was about to expire. Within days of her appointment, Halligan delivered indictments against both figures.

Legal observers noted that Halligan was the sole attorney to present the cases to the grand juries and sign the indictments, with no career prosecutors from the Eastern District of Virginia joining either case—an unusual practice for high-profile federal prosecutions.

In court, DOJ attorney Henry Whitaker had argued that the challenges to Halligan’s appointment involved “at best a paperwork error” that didn’t justify dismissing the charges. However, Judge Currie strongly disagreed with that characterization.

“The implications of a contrary conclusion are extraordinary,” Currie wrote. “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.”

Following the ruling, Comey released a statement on social media expressing relief. “I am grateful the Court ended the case against me, which was a prosecution based on malevolence and incompetence, and a reflection of what the Justice Department has become under Donald Trump, which is heartbreaking,” he said.

The White House quickly countered, with Leavitt suggesting that “maybe James Comey should pump the brakes on his victory lap” given the Department’s planned appeal.

The dismissals mark a significant setback in the administration’s legal efforts against Trump’s critics, but with the cases dismissed without prejudice, the possibility remains that the charges could be refiled under proper prosecutorial authority in the future.