Ask Onix
Federal judge dismisses charges against Comey and James over prosecutor's appointment
A federal judge dismissed indictments on Monday against former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James, ruling that the prosecutor overseeing their cases was improperly appointed. The decision marks a temporary legal victory for two of President Trump's most vocal critics, though the government signaled plans to appeal.
Judge rules prosecutor's appointment 'invalid'
US District Judge Cameron Currie threw out the charges, declaring that prosecutor Lindsey Halligan lacked legal authority to bring the cases forward. Halligan's appointment as interim US attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia violated federal statutes, Currie ruled, rendering the indictments void.
In her written decision, Currie stated that Attorney General Pam Bondi's attempt to install Halligan was 'invalid,' leaving Halligan 'without lawful authority to present the indictment.' The ruling could also call into question other cases Halligan has pursued in the same district.
Government vows appeal as legal uncertainty lingers
The Department of Justice quickly indicated it would challenge the ruling. Bondi announced plans for an 'immediate appeal' to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, a move consistent with the Trump administration's pattern of aggressively contesting unfavorable lower-court decisions.
White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson hinted at further legal action, stating, 'This will not be the final word on this matter.' Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt later defended Halligan's appointment as lawful, despite the judge's findings.
'It feels to me like uncharted territory.'
Kay Levine, Emory University School of Law professor
Comey and James decry 'politically motivated' prosecutions
Both defendants have long argued that the charges-false statements to Congress and obstruction of justice for Comey, and bank fraud and false statements to a financial institution for James-were retaliatory. Their legal teams framed the dismissals as vindication.
Comey acknowledged the possibility of renewed charges, telling reporters, 'I believe [Trump] will probably come after me again.' Abbe Lowell, James' attorney, pledged to 'challenge any further politically motivated charges through every lawful means available.'
Statute of limitations complicates potential Comey re-indictment
The government's path to re-indicting Comey faces hurdles, including the statute of limitations, which expired in September. While the dismissal triggers a six-month grace period, Comey's legal team, led by Patrick Fitzgerald, plans to argue that prosecutors are now out of time.
John Day, president of the American College of Trial Lawyers, called the legal landscape a 'procedural morass,' noting that even if a lawfully appointed prosecutor secured a new indictment, Comey's team would fiercely contest it.
Broader implications for Halligan's cases
The ruling raises questions about the validity of other prosecutions Halligan has led in Virginia. Bondi, however, praised Halligan's work as 'excellent' and insisted her role as a 'special US attorney' remained intact. Legal experts warn the decision could embolden challenges to Halligan's past cases, though the immediate focus remains on the Comey and James appeals.
What's next: Appeals and potential new indictments
The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals will now review Currie's decision. If the government prevails, it could revive the original indictments or convene new grand juries. For James, Kay Levine suggested a different prosecutor could 'bring [her] case to a new grand jury and get a new indictment.'
Yet the process promises to be contentious. Levine and other observers emphasize the cases' unprecedented nature, with political overtones complicating every step. As Day noted, 'There are no simple answers here.'
