Federal Judge Dismisses Charges Against Comey and James, Citing Unlawful Appointment of Prosecutor
Table of Contents
A federal judge on Monday dismissed the criminal charges against former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James, delivering a significant legal blow to the Justice Department. The dismissal stems from the judge’s finding that Lindsey Halligan, the interim U.S. attorney who secured the indictments, was unlawfully appointed to the role, raising serious questions about the validity of the prosecutions and potentially signaling a protracted legal battle.
The rulings, issued by U.S. District Judge Cameron Currie, are widely seen as a victory for both Comey and James, who have consistently argued that their prosecutions were politically motivated – a retaliatory response orchestrated by former President Trump against perceived adversaries. The Justice Department is expected to appeal the decisions and seek a stay of the rulings, setting the stage for further legal challenges.
“I conclude that all actions flowing from Ms. Halligan’s defective appointment, including securing and signing Mr. Comey’s indictment, constitute unlawful exercises of executive power and must be set aside,” Judge Currie wrote in her opinion regarding the case against Comey, echoing the same conclusion in her ruling concerning James. The indictments were dismissed “without prejudice,” meaning prosecutors retain the option to pursue new charges, though the statute of limitations for the offenses against Comey expired at the end of September, potentially precluding a re-indictment.
Lawyers representing both Comey and James have also advanced additional legal arguments seeking dismissal, alleging that the prosecutions were vindictive and selectively targeted. The judge presiding over Comey’s case heard arguments on these grounds last week but has yet to issue a ruling.
In a statement released following the judge’s decision, New York Attorney General Letitia James expressed her relief and determination. “I am heartened by today’s victory and grateful for the prayers and support I have received from around the country,” James stated. “I remain fearless in the face of these baseless charges as I continue fighting for New Yorkers every single day.”
Judge’s Rulings Detail Appointment Flaws
Judge Currie’s decisions centered on a detailed analysis of federal law and the Constitution’s Appointments Clause. She found that Halligan’s appointment violated both Section 546, which governs vacancies in U.S. Attorney positions, and the constitutional requirements for appointments to such roles.
Specifically, the judge determined that the authority to appoint an interim U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia for a 120-day period rested not with the Attorney General, but with the district court for the region. Currie warned that allowing the Attorney General to indefinitely circumvent the Senate confirmation process by “stacking” consecutive 120-day appointments would undermine the constitutional checks and balances.
“In sum, the text, structure, and history of section 546 point to one conclusion: the Attorney General’s authority to appoint an interim U.S. Attorney lasts for a total of 120 days from the date she first invokes section 546 after the departure of a Senate-confirmed U.S. Attorney,” Currie wrote. “If the position remains vacant at the end of the 120-day period, the exclusive authority to make further interim appointments under the statute shifts to the district court, where it remains until the President’s nominee is confirmed by the Senate. Ms. Halligan was not appointed in a manner consistent with this framework.”
The judge concluded that Halligan had been unlawfully serving as interim U.S. attorney since September 22. Comey was subsequently indicted on September 25, and James was charged on October 9.
Halligan’s Background and Appointment Process
Lindsey Halligan, a former insurance lawyer, previously served on President Trump’s defense team during one of the criminal cases brought against him by former Special Counsel Jack Smith. She assumed the role of top federal prosecutor for the Eastern District of Virginia in a temporary capacity in late September and swiftly pursued indictments against both Comey and James.
Halligan’s appointment by Attorney General Pam Bondi followed the abrupt departure of her predecessor, Erik Siebert, amid reports that he faced pressure to prosecute James. Bondi appointed Halligan under the provisions of Section 546, which allows the Attorney General to select an interim U.S. attorney for up to 120 days.
However, this practice has faced legal challenges in other jurisdictions. The Trump administration previously invoked Section 546 and similar measures to install temporary prosecutors in New Jersey, Nevada, and Los Angeles, but three separate federal judges ruled against the legality of those appointments.
In the Eastern District of Virginia, Siebert was initially appointed in January for a 120-day term. Before his term expired, the federal court for the region voted to extend his service, exercising its authority under federal law. Following Siebert’s departure, President Trump reportedly urged Bondi to install Halligan in the position. Bondi then issued an order in September naming Halligan as the interim U.S. attorney, with a 120-day term. Shortly after assuming her role, Halligan secured a two-count indictment against Comey, alleging he lied to Congress during September 2020 testimony and obstructed a congressional proceeding. James was indicted in early October on charges of bank fraud. Both have pleaded not guilty.
Defense Arguments Focused on Invalid Appointment
Comey’s legal team argued that his indictment was “fatally flawed” because Halligan, as the sole presenter of the case to the grand jury and the signatory of the indictment, was invalidly appointed. They contended that the 120-day clock for interim appointments began with the initial appointment of Siebert by the Attorney General and capped the total tenure of interim appointments at 120 days. Since Siebert had already served the full 120 days, the defense lawyers argued, only the district court possessed the authority to appoint a successor.
The Justice Department countered that the 120-day limit applied on a “per-appointment basis,” with each appointment triggering its own 120-day clock and requiring the Attorney General to reassess interim selections every 120 days. To bolster Halligan’s actions, the Justice Department submitted an October order from Bondi retroactively designating her as a special attorney and ratifying her actions before the grand juries and on the indictments.
However, Judge Currie rejected Bondi’s attempt to retroactively name Halligan as a special attorney, stating that the Justice Department had not presented any legal basis for the Attorney General to “reach back in time and rewrite the terms of a past appointment.” She also dismissed the Attorney General’s attempt to ratify Halligan’s actions as insufficient.
“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.”
Judge Currie had previously heard arguments on Comey’s motion to dismiss the case based on the appointment issue earlier this month, alongside a similar effort by James. As in Comey’s case, Halligan was the sole presenter of the case against James to the grand jury and signed the indictment. The legal battles are likely to continue as the Justice Department weighs its options for appeal and potential re-indictment.
