Federal Judge Dismisses Criminal Cases Against Comey, James; Cites Illegally Appointed Trump-Era Prosecutor

Judicial Rebuke: Cases Against Comey, James Dismissed Over Illegally Appointed Prosecutor

In a significant legal blow to the Trump administration's attempts to target political adversaries, a federal judge has thrown out criminal cases against former FBI director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James. The U.S. District Judge's ruling concluded that the prosecutor responsible for bringing these charges, Lindsey Halligan, was illegally appointed by the Justice Department at the urging of then-President Donald Trump.

Unlawful Appointment Voids Indictments

U.S. District Judge Cameron McGowan Currie's orders represent a powerful repudiation of the administration's alleged efforts to leverage the Justice Department against its critics. The judge determined that Halligan, a former personal lawyer to Trump, was improperly installed in her U.S. attorney role in Virginia. "All actions flowing from Ms. Halligan’s defective appointment, including securing and signing Mr. Comey’s indictment, were unlawful exercises of executive power and are hereby set aside," the judge wrote.

This decision marks Lindsey Halligan as the latest Trump-appointed prosecutor to be disqualified due to issues with their appointment process. Similar rulings have previously impacted U.S. attorneys in California, Nevada, and New Jersey, though in those instances, courts allowed cases brought under their supervision to proceed with different officials taking over.

Comey and James Seek Permanent Dismissal

Both Comey and James had advocated for their cases to be dismissed with prejudice, which would have prevented the Justice Department from re-filing the charges. However, the judge opted for a dismissal without prejudice, leaving the door open, however slightly, for potential future prosecution efforts. It remains uncertain how the Justice Department might attempt to revive these cases, especially given Attorney General Pam Bondi's immediate vow to pursue an "immediate appeal" and the White House's assertion that "this will not be the final word on this matter."

The charges against James stemmed from a mortgage fraud investigation, while Comey was indicted just days before the apparent statute of limitations on charges of making a false statement to Congress and obstructing a congressional proceeding.

Reactions and Broader Context

James Comey, a vocal critic of Trump since his 2017 firing from the FBI, welcomed the ruling. In a social media post, he emphasized the critical importance of preventing a President from weaponizing the Justice Department against political opponents, calling such actions "fundamentally un-American and a threat to the rule of law."

New York Attorney General Letitia James, who successfully pursued a major fraud lawsuit against Trump and his organization (though the financial penalty was later overturned on appeal), expressed her gratitude for the "victory" and reaffirmed her commitment to New Yorkers "in the face of these baseless charges."

The challenge to Halligan's appointment was part of a multi-pronged legal strategy by both defendants, who also argued that the prosecutions were vindictive and pointed to alleged irregularities in the grand jury process. These additional arguments for dismissal are still pending.

A Pattern of Disqualified Appointments

The ruling underscores a broader pattern during the Trump administration where judicial concerns arose regarding the appointment mechanisms for U.S. attorneys. Halligan's appointment came after an interim U.S. attorney, Erik Siebert, was reportedly forced out for resisting pressure to file charges against Comey and James. Critics argued that federal court judges should have held exclusive authority over filling the vacancy after Siebert's resignation, especially given Trump's public social media appeals to then-Attorney General Pam Bondi to "SERVE JUSTICE, NOW!!!" against his political foes.

This judicial pushback highlights ongoing tensions between the executive branch's prosecutorial ambitions and the judiciary's role in upholding the rule of law and proper procedural appointments.