Hot Posts

6/recent/ticker-posts

Judge dismisses cases against James Comey and Letitia James


A federal judge on Monday dismissed the Trump administration’s criminal cases against former FBI director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James after finding that the prosecutor leading both efforts had been illegally appointed.

U.S. District Judge Cameron Currie granted Comey’s motion to dismiss the indictment against him, ruling that Attorney General Pam Bondi exceeded her authority when she installed Lindsay Halligan as interim U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia. Currie found that the Justice Department had already used its statutory power to make an interim appointment earlier in the year, thereby rendering Halligan’s appointment invalid.

According to the ruling, the department’s authority expired after 120 days under federal law, beginning with the appointment of Erik Siebert as acting U.S. Attorney on January 21, 2025. Siebert, a career prosecutor, later resigned after President Trump publicly criticized him for not advancing charges against James. The Trump administration then installed Halligan—a former White House staffer with no prosecutorial background—to move the cases forward when Siebert declined to do so.

“Ms. Halligan was not appointed in a manner consistent with this framework,” Currie wrote, concluding that Bondi’s authority lapsed on May 21, 2025, and therefore “Ms. Halligan has been unlawfully serving in that role since September 22, 2025.”

Defense Arguments Sway Court

Attorneys for both Comey and James argued that Halligan’s appointment was illegal in part because the department had already used its interim appointment authority when installing Siebert. They also pointed to President Trump’s public calls for Bondi to pursue his political adversaries as evidence of political motivation behind the charges.

Just before Comey was indicted in September, Trump had urged Bondi to bring charges against him. Comey, who was fired in 2017, has long been one of Trump’s most visible critics. He had been charged with lying to Congress in 2020 regarding whether he authorized a leak of classified information while FBI director.

James’s case centered on an allegation that she had falsely claimed a Norfolk, Va., home was her primary residence to obtain more favorable mortgage terms. She has been a frequent Trump opponent dating back to her 2024 civil fraud case against him in New York.

In her public statement following the ruling, James 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.”

Dismissals Leave Uncertain Path Forward

Currie dismissed both cases without prejudice, meaning they could technically be refiled. But the statute of limitations has already expired on the false-statements case against Comey—an obstacle that could prevent the Trump administration from bringing those charges again.

Halligan’s future is also now uncertain. Because Currie ruled her appointment invalid, authority to name an interim U.S. Attorney now rests with the federal court in the Eastern District of Virginia until the Senate confirms Bondi’s nominee. Halligan’s lack of prosecutorial experience, combined with criticism of her handling of the Comey case, may complicate any confirmation attempt in the GOP-controlled Senate.

Part of a Broader Pattern

The cases against Comey and James are among several efforts by the Trump administration to pursue investigations or prosecutions of some of the president’s most prominent political adversaries. These moves have followed a turbulent 2024 in which Trump himself faced four criminal prosecutions and a major civil fraud case brought by James’s office.

Administration officials have framed their actions as part of a broader effort to counter what they describe as political “weaponization” of the justice system and restore the rule of law. Critics, however, have characterized the moves as retaliatory and politically driven—an argument that the defense emphasized and that Monday’s ruling will likely intensify.

With the dismissals now on the books and the prosecutor appointment deemed unlawful, it remains unclear whether the administration will attempt to revive the stalled cases or shift its focus to other investigations.