In a dramatic legal decision announced Monday, U.S. District Judge Cameron McGowan Currie dismissed criminal indictments against former FBI Director James B. Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James, ruling that the prosecutor who brought the cases, Lindsey Halligan, was unlawfully appointed.
Judge Currie determined that Halligan’s appointment as Interim U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia exceeded the 120-day limit prescribed under federal law and bypassed court appointment authority. She wrote that “all actions flowing from Ms. Halligan’s defective appointment … were unlawful exercises of executive power and must be set aside.”
The dismissed charges included, in Comey’s case, allegations of false statements and obstruction of a congressional proceeding related to his 2020 testimony, and in James’s case, charges of bank fraud and false statements tied to a 2020 property mortgage application. Although the substance of the allegations was not addressed in the ruling, the decision deals a major blow to the arguably politically charged prosecutions.
Halligan, a former White House aide with no prior prosecutorial experience, was installed after the previous U.S. attorney, Erik Siebert, reportedly declined to bring charges. Halligan led the indictments in both cases within days of her appointment.
In statements, James called the ruling a vindication, saying she was “heartened by today’s victory … grateful for the prayers and support … I remain fearless in the face of these baseless charges.” Comey, in a recorded video, said the prosecution was “based on malevolence and incompetence … a reflection of what the Department of Justice has become under Donald Trump.”
The cases were dismissed without prejudice, meaning the government may refile charges under an appropriately appointed prosecutor. However, in Comey’s case, Judge Currie flagged that the statute of limitations likely has expired, suggesting practical immunity.
The decision reflects growing judicial concern over the use of interim appointments to bring politically sensitive prosecutions. It also highlights scrutiny of the justice system’s independence when high-profile enemies of the former president are targeted. The Department of Justice has not yet publicly detailed next steps, but appeals and potential re-indictments appear likely.
Sources:
Disclaimer
Artificial Intelligence Disclosure & Legal Disclaimer
AI Content Policy.
To provide our readers with timely and comprehensive coverage, South Florida Reporter uses artificial intelligence (AI) to assist in producing certain articles and visual content.
Articles: AI may be used to assist in research, structural drafting, or data analysis. All AI-assisted text is reviewed and edited by our team to ensure accuracy and adherence to our editorial standards.
Images: Any imagery generated or significantly altered by AI is clearly marked with a disclaimer or watermark to distinguish it from traditional photography or editorial illustrations.
General Disclaimer
The information contained in South Florida Reporter is for general information purposes only.
South Florida Reporter assumes no responsibility for errors or omissions in the contents of the Service. In no event shall South Florida Reporter be liable for any special, direct, indirect, consequential, or incidental damages or any damages whatsoever, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tort, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Service or the contents of the Service.
The Company reserves the right to make additions, deletions, or modifications to the contents of the Service at any time without prior notice. The Company does not warrant that the Service is free of viruses or other harmful components.
