A federal judge on Monday threw out the criminal indictments against former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James, ruling that the prosecutor who brought the charges had been improperly appointed.
U.S. District Judge Cameron Currie dismissed the false-statements case against Comey and the bank-fraud case against James without prejudice, meaning federal prosecutors could seek new indictments in the future.
In a sharply worded opinion, Currie wrote: “I conclude that the Attorney General’s attempt to install Ms. 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.”
Judge Rules Prosecutor Was Not Legally Installed
The ruling centers on Lindsey Halligan, whom Attorney General Pam Bondi tapped as interim U.S. attorney in one of the Justice Department’s most influential districts. The appointment raised immediate questions because Halligan had no prosecutorial experience and assumed the position just days after the removal of the prior interim U.S. attorney, Erik Siebert.
Halligan personally presented both cases to the grand jury and was the sole lawyer to sign the resulting indictments—an unusual move given the high-profile nature of the cases and the absence of career prosecutors from the Eastern District of Virginia.
Defense attorneys for Comey and James argued that Halligan had no lawful authority to act. Abbe Lowell, representing Letitia James, said Halligan was effectively a “private person” when she entered the grand jury rooms and “completely unauthorized to be in them.”
DOJ Attempted to Ratify the Indictments
The Justice Department has defended Halligan’s installation, and Bondi attempted to ratify the indictments retroactively, an action Currie noted would not have been necessary had the appointment been legally valid.
During a recent hearing, DOJ attorney Henry Whitaker characterized the controversy as “at best a paperwork error.” Currie was not persuaded, signaling skepticism about Halligan’s standing even before issuing Monday’s order.
Currie, a Clinton-era appointee now based in South Carolina, was assigned to the case after Virginia’s federal judges recused themselves due to the unusual procedural issues raised by Halligan’s appointment. The challenges brought by Comey and James were consolidated because they involved identical questions of authority.
High-Profile Cases Scrapped, For Now
The dismissals mark a significant development in two of the most closely watched prosecutions targeting officials long viewed unfavorably by conservatives for their roles in investigations and legal actions against former President Donald Trump. Comey has been a lightning rod for criticism over the FBI’s handling of the 2016 Trump-Russia investigation, while Letitia James led New York’s aggressive civil case against Trump and his business empire.
The DOJ could appeal Currie’s ruling or choose to bring the charges again—this time through a properly appointed U.S. attorney.
Just proves that there is a two tier system of justice in our country. The rich and liberal get treated differently and more deferentially than the poor and middle conservatives. We would already be in jail if implicated in what they were implicated in. Oh, and it does not hurt to have rogue judges everywhere that are engaged with something they have no business being involved with like playing President or complainant, investigator, prosecutor, jury, and judge all at the same time.
Yup, if it was me, I would have already mastered that license plate machine!
Nunya: I know that it seems that way, but trust me on this — I’m a lawyer with over 4 decades experience doing nothing but criminal law, and when I was a prosecutor I took hundreds of presentments before Grand Juries and, once they voted it out as a “True Bill”, that made a valid indictment. But I had been sworn in on my first day on the job by the Chief Judge of the Circuit, so my authority to do that was fully and properly based in law. The issue regarding the attorney who actually went in front of the Grand Jury had to do with who made the appointment of her and whether that appointer had valid authority to make that appointment. Put simply, (a) a Grand Jury indictment is the single most important document in a criminal case, so (b) all the formalities of obtaining and returning an indictment are very strictly enforced. A whole bunch of criminal law practitioners raised the appointment question when the indictment was first returned, because an unqualified person in the Grand Jury room is an irregularity that can get an indictment invalidated. The big questions now are can the prosecutors lawfully seek a new indictment, will they seek a new indictment or just let it go, and will the prosecutors get it right if they do seek another indictment?
Just saying…
After 79 years my opinion of our so called justice system could not be lower. If justice is ever served to these two I will be totally shocked.
Once again, the government shows that the crooks are running the court house. They all need to be put behind bars and kept there for many years,