A federal judge has dismissed criminal charges against former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James, ruling that the prosecutor who brought the cases was unlawfully appointed.
Judge Currie concluded that Lindsey Halligan, named interim U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia in September, “had no legal authority” to seek the indictments. The judge threw out both cases on that ground but dismissed them without prejudice, allowing the Justice Department to refile under a properly appointed prosecutor.
- Advertisement -
The ruling deals a significant blow to the Justice Department’s efforts to pursue two high-profile targets of President Donald Trump. Mr. Trump publicly urged prosecutions of Mr. Comey and Ms. James and directed Attorney General Pam Bondi to install Halligan after the office’s prior interim U.S. attorney, Erik Siebert, declined to pursue charges, citing a lack of credible evidence.
Halligan had no prior prosecutorial experience, according to court filings. Prosecutors in the Eastern District of Virginia declined to participate in the investigations; Halligan alone secured the indictments shortly after her appointment, court records show.
Comey is charged with making false statements and obstructing Congress. James faces counts of bank fraud and lying to a financial institution. Both have pleaded not guilty.
Attorneys for Comey and James challenged Halligan’s appointment under a federal statute they said limits interim U.S. attorney appointments to a single 120‑day period. They argued repeated interim appointments effectively bypass the Senate confirmation process and could allow a prosecutor to serve indefinitely.
The Justice Department maintained the Attorney General has authority to make successive interim appointments. Bondi also filed a document designating Halligan as a special attorney assigned to the prosecutions and saying she ratified the indictments, a move intended to shore up the cases.
At a Nov. 13 hearing, Judge Currie repeatedly questioned why the department would take those steps if it believed Halligan’s appointment was lawful, underscoring the court’s concern about the appointment’s legality and the unusual procedural posture of the prosecutions.
Defense lawyers also argued the prosecutions were politically motivated, describing them as vindictive actions driven by President Trump’s animosity toward the two critics. The judge’s ruling did not resolve those allegations but struck the cases on the narrower ground of appointment authority.
With the dismissals entered without prejudice, prosecutors could seek to refile the charges under a properly appointed U.S. attorney. Until then, the high‑profile cases remain paused as legal challenges and political fallout continue.
By Abdiwahab Ahmed
Axadle Times international–Monitoring.
