A federal judge has dismissed criminal indictments against former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James, ruling that the prosecutor who brought the cases was unlawfully appointed. The decision, which the Justice Department plans to appeal, centers on the invalid appointment of Lindsey Halligan as interim U.S. Attorney after the statutory 120-day period for such roles had expired.
U.S. District Judge Cameron McGowan Currie, in her Monday order, found that Halligan’s appointment by Attorney General Pam Bondi was invalid because the 120-day clock for an interim U.S. Attorney began with her predecessor, Erik Siebert, and expired on May 21, 2025. This meant Bondi lacked authority to install Halligan in September 2025, rendering all her actions, including securing and signing the indictments, unlawful exercises of executive power. The judge emphasized that allowing such appointments would enable the executive branch to evade Senate confirmation indefinitely.
The cases against Comey and James were brought swiftly after Halligan’s appointment. Comey faced charges of making false statements to Congress and obstructing a congressional investigation related to his 2017 testimony, while James was indicted for bank fraud and making false statements to a financial institution over a property loan. Both had pleaded not guilty, and their attorneys argued the prosecutions were politically motivated, citing President Donald Trump’s public calls for action against them.
Halligan, a former White House adviser with no prior prosecutorial experience, was appointed at Trump’s direction after he pressured Bondi to prosecute political adversaries. Trump’s Truth Social posts in September explicitly named Comey, James, and others, urging Bondi to act, and Halligan presented the cases to grand juries just days later, narrowly before the statute of limitations expired for Comey’s charges. This timing raised concerns about selective enforcement.
In response to the dismissal, Comey expressed relief in an Instagram video, calling the prosecution ‘based on malevolence and incompetence’ and highlighting the importance of an independent judiciary to protect against political targeting. James issued a statement saying she was ‘heartened by today’s victory’ and remained fearless in fighting for New Yorkers. Their attorneys praised the ruling as a rejection of politically driven charges.
The Justice Department, through Bondi and White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt, announced an immediate appeal, asserting that Halligan was legally appointed and vowing to hold Comey and James accountable. Bondi defended Halligan as an excellent attorney and dismissed Comey’s comments, stating his alleged actions betrayed public trust. The appeal will focus on whether the appointments were valid and if the cases can be refiled.
The dismissals were made without prejudice, meaning the charges could theoretically be revived, but the judge noted that the statute of limitations might bar refiling in Comey’s case. Legal experts suggest the government faces significant hurdles in overturning the ruling, which could also impact other cases handled by Halligan and highlight broader issues of Justice Department independence under political pressure.
Looking ahead, the appeal process will determine the fate of these cases, but the ruling reinforces checks on executive power and may influence how interim appointments are handled in the future. It underscores ongoing tensions between political influence and legal integrity, with implications for high-profile prosecutions and the rule of law.
