A federal judge has dismissed criminal charges against former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James, delivering a significant blow to the Trump administration's prosecution efforts. Judge Christopher Currie ruled on November 24, 2025, that the prosecutor handling the cases lacked the legal authority to bring charges, marking a dramatic turn in two high-profile political prosecutions.
Judge Rules Prosecutor Lacked Legal Authority
The dismissal centers on prosecutor Meredith Halligan's appointment, which Judge Currie determined violated the Federal Vacancies Reform Act. The law imposes a strict 120-day window for interim appointments following a vacancy in federal positions. According to court documents, the attorney general's appointment authority expired on May 21, 2025, making Halligan's September 22 appointment invalid.
Halligan, who had no prior prosecutorial experience, was appointed after the Trump administration replaced interim U.S. Attorney Erik Siebert. The judge's 47-page ruling emphasized that prosecutorial authority cannot be exercised by someone appointed outside statutory boundaries, regardless of the underlying merits of the cases.
The cases were dismissed "without prejudice," meaning the Justice Department retains the option to refile charges if a properly appointed prosecutor chooses to pursue them. This technical dismissal leaves the door open for future prosecution but requires adherence to proper appointment procedures.
Background on Comey and James Prosecutions
James Comey faced charges including false statements and obstruction of justice related to his handling of FBI investigations during the 2016 presidential election. The former FBI director, who was fired by President Trump during his first term, has maintained that the charges represent political retaliation for his role in investigating connections between the Trump administration and Russian interference.
Letitia James was charged with bank fraud and abuse of office in connection with investigations she conducted into Trump Organization business practices before Trump's 2024 re-election. James had successfully pursued civil cases against Trump properties and financial dealings, securing significant judgments in New York state court.
Both defendants argued from the outset that the prosecutions were politically motivated revenge actions initiated after Trump returned to the White House in January 2025. Their legal teams focused on challenging the legitimacy of Halligan's appointment rather than initially contesting the substance of the allegations.
Trump Administration's Response and Appeal Plans
The White House stated within hours of Judge Currie's ruling, announcing plans to appeal the dismissal. Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt described the decision as a "procedural technicality" that doesn't address the "serious allegations of misconduct" against both defendants.
Justice Department officials indicated they are reviewing options for properly appointing a qualified prosecutor to handle potential refiling of the charges. The department faces scrutiny over its appointment processes following multiple judicial rebukes in recent months.
What the Dismissal "Without Prejudice" Means
Legal experts explain that dismissal "without prejudice" preserves the government's ability to bring the same charges again under proper procedural conditions. Unlike dismissal "with prejudice," which permanently bars re-prosecution, this ruling only addresses the flawed appointment process.
The statute of limitations continues to run on the alleged offenses, creating time pressure for the Justice Department to act if it intends to pursue the cases. Federal prosecutors must balance the technical requirements of proper appointment against the political optics of continuing prosecutions widely viewed as retaliatory.
Constitutional Questions About Prosecutorial Independence
Judge Currie's ruling raises broader concerns about executive branch interference in prosecutorial decisions. The Federal Vacancies Reform Act exists specifically to prevent administrations from circumventing Senate confirmation requirements by installing unqualified political appointees in critical legal positions.
Constitutional scholars note that the case highlights tensions between presidential authority over the Justice Department and the principle of prosecutorial independence. The replacement of interim U.S. Attorney Siebert after he allegedly resisted pressure to file charges demonstrates how appointment power can be weaponized to achieve desired prosecution outcomes.
The ruling reinforces judicial willingness to scrutinize executive branch appointments that appear designed to enable politically motivated prosecutions. Courts have consistently held that proper procedure and qualified personnel are essential safeguards against abuse of prosecutorial power, regardless of which administration holds office.
Read More:
0 Comments