Judge Dismisses Cases Against Comey and James Over Unlawful Prosecutor Appointment

Federal courthouse where Judge Currie dismissed criminal charges against James Comey and Letitia James November 2025

A federal judge dismissed the criminal indictments against former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James on November 24, 2025, after concluding that Lindsey Halligan, the interim U.S. attorney who personally presented both cases to grand juries, had been unlawfully appointed.

Senior U.S. District Judge Cameron McGowan Currie ruled that Attorney General Pam Bondi lacked authority under the federal statute governing interim U.S. attorney appointments to install Halligan in September 2025. Because Halligan was the prosecutor who obtained and signed the indictments, Currie set aside those actions and dismissed both cases without prejudice.

The rulings addressed the legality of Halligan's appointment rather than deciding whether Comey or James committed the crimes alleged by prosecutors. Both defendants had pleaded not guilty and separately argued that the prosecutions were improperly motivated by political retaliation.

Why the Judge Found Halligan's Appointment Invalid

The dispute centered primarily on 28 U.S.C. Â§ 546, which establishes a process for temporarily filling a vacant U.S. attorney position.

Erik Siebert had been appointed interim U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia on January 21, 2025. Under the statute, an attorney general-appointed interim U.S. attorney generally serves for 120 days. Currie concluded that the attorney general's authority under that provision expired on May 21, 2025.

When the office remained vacant after that period, Currie held that the power to make another interim appointment under Section 546 shifted to the federal district court until a presidential nominee was confirmed by the Senate. Bondi nevertheless appointed Halligan on September 22.

In her opinion in Comey's case, Currie concluded that Halligan's appointment violated both Section 546 and the Constitution's Appointments Clause. The judge also rejected the Justice Department's efforts to ratify Halligan's earlier actions through other appointments or delegations.

The Justice Department disputed that interpretation. Its position was that federal law permitted the attorney general to appoint Halligan and that the executive branch retained broader authority to fill the vacancy. That statutory disagreement became the central issue in the government's subsequent appeal.

What Comey Was Charged With

Comey was indicted on September 25, 2025, three days after Halligan's appointment. According to the Justice Department's announcement, the two-count indictment accused him of making a false statement and obstructing a congressional proceeding in connection with testimony he gave to the Senate Judiciary Committee on September 30, 2020.

An indictment is an accusation, not a finding of guilt. Comey pleaded not guilty and denied wrongdoing.

Comey, who served as FBI director until Trump fired him in 2017, had long been involved in politically contentious disputes surrounding investigations conducted during and after the 2016 election. Those broader disputes also formed part of the political background surrounding the prosecution and Comey's claim that the case was retaliatory.

An existing News Fusion 365 article provides additional background on disputes over presidential removal authority and the federal government: the Trump administration and federal officials.

What Letitia James Was Charged With

James was indicted on October 9, 2025. The Justice Department charged her with one count of bank fraud and one count of making false statements to a financial institution.

The indictment concerned allegations about representations made in connection with a Virginia property and its mortgage. Prosecutors alleged that James represented the property in a way that qualified her for loan terms she otherwise would not have received.

James pleaded not guilty. She denied criminal wrongdoing and characterized the prosecution as politically motivated. As with Comey, Currie's November ruling did not determine whether the underlying mortgage allegations were true.

James had previously brought a civil fraud case against Trump and the Trump Organization in New York. That history contributed to the political controversy surrounding her federal prosecution, but it did not itself resolve the factual or legal merits of the criminal charges.

Why the Indictments Were Dismissed

Halligan's role was especially important because she personally presented the two cases to the grand juries that returned the indictments. Currie concluded that actions taken through Halligan's defective appointment could not stand.

In the Comey ruling, the judge wrote that actions flowing from the defective appointment, including securing and signing the indictment, were unlawful exercises of executive power and had to be set aside.

The dismissals were entered without prejudice. That phrase ordinarily means that a dismissal does not automatically prohibit prosecutors from bringing charges again. It does not, however, guarantee that a new prosecution will be legally possible.

The practical consequences differed between the two defendants because of issues including statutes of limitation. Comey's lawyers argued that the limitations period for the conduct charged against him had expired shortly after his original indictment and that an indictment obtained by an unlawfully appointed prosecutor did not preserve the government's ability to refile. Currie's ruling discussed that issue but the subsequent appellate litigation focused on whether the original indictments should be restored.

The Ruling Did Not Decide the Political-Retaliation Claims

Both Comey and James also challenged their prosecutions on grounds separate from Halligan's appointment, including allegations that the cases constituted vindictive or selective prosecution.

Those claims reflected a broader dispute over President Trump's public calls for investigations and prosecutions of political adversaries. The defendants pointed to Trump's statements and the circumstances surrounding changes in leadership at the Eastern District of Virginia as evidence supporting their arguments.

The administration and Justice Department defended the prosecutions and maintained that the defendants could lawfully be held accountable for alleged criminal conduct.

Currie's November 24 rulings did not resolve that political and constitutional dispute. The cases were dismissed on the narrower appointment issue, meaning the court did not determine whether the prosecutions were vindictive or whether the underlying criminal allegations could ultimately be proved.

What Happened After the November 2025 Dismissals

The Justice Department appealed both dismissals to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in December 2025.

Halligan's own interim term later expired in January 2026, according to the government's appellate filings, and she left the Justice Department.

The appeals remained active through 2026. On September 15, 2026, a three-judge Fourth Circuit panel heard arguments over whether Bondi had authority to appoint Halligan and whether Currie used the correct remedy by invalidating the indictments.

During the hearing, judges questioned both sides about the text and structure of Section 546 and the consequences of allowing an attorney general to make successive interim appointments. The Justice Department argued that Currie's interpretation placed restrictions on executive appointment authority that were not contained in the statute. Lawyers for Comey and James argued that the government's interpretation could allow repeated temporary appointments that bypass the statutory role assigned to federal judges after the initial 120-day period.

As of September 28, 2026, the Fourth Circuit had heard the appeal but had not issued a final decision resolving whether the dismissed indictments should be reinstated. The appellate proceedings therefore concerned the validity of the original prosecutions; oral argument itself did not restore either indictment.

Why the Appointment Dispute Matters

The controversy involves more than the qualifications of a single prosecutor. It concerns how federal law divides temporary appointment authority among the attorney general, the courts, the president and the Senate when a U.S. attorney's office remains vacant.

U.S. attorneys ordinarily require presidential nomination and Senate confirmation. Section 546 supplies a temporary mechanism when an office becomes vacant, but the Comey and James cases raised a disputed question about whether the attorney general can start a new 120-day period by appointing a second interim U.S. attorney after the first period has already expired.

Currie answered that question no, concluding that the district court's appointment authority takes over after the statutory period. The Justice Department's appeal argues for a broader interpretation of executive authority.

The ultimate appellate ruling may therefore clarify how future administrations can fill long-running U.S. attorney vacancies. Separately, any further proceedings involving Comey or James would still have to address the underlying criminal allegations and any other defenses that were not decided by Currie's appointment ruling.

Read More: