A federal judge on Monday dismissed separate criminal charges against former F.B.I. director James B. Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James, ruling that the prosecutor appointed by former President Trump to bring the cases had been installed unlawfully. Judge Cameron McGowan Currie’s twin rulings represent one of the most significant setbacks yet to the president’s attempts to use the criminal justice system against perceived political adversaries. The dismissals also implicitly rebuked Attorney General Pam Bondi, who had expedited the appointment of Lindsey Halligan as U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia.
The decisions, while publicly embarrassing for the White House and the Justice Department, are not necessarily the final word on the issue, as many legal experts expect the matter could eventually be appealed to the Supreme Court. Judge Currie’s rulings also left open the possibility that the government could refile charges against both Mr. Comey and Ms. James under a different prosecutor.
Judge Currie’s orders focused on Mr. Trump’s unusual decision to appoint Ms. Halligan in an interim capacity, replacing the previous temporary U.S. attorney, Erik S. Siebert. Shortly after assuming the position, Ms. Halligan rejected the advice of career prosecutors in her office and independently moved to indict both Mr. Comey and Ms. James, two of the president’s most publicly criticized targets. The judge determined that appointing successive interim prosecutors was unlawful, dismissing the charges without prejudice, meaning the government could attempt to refile the cases.
The White House indicated it would appeal the ruling rather than abandon the high-profile cases. Karoline Leavitt, the White House press secretary, told reporters that the judge “was clearly trying to shield Letitia James and James Comey from receiving accountability” and said the Justice Department would quickly appeal “this unprecedented action.”
Patrick J. Fitzgerald, a lawyer for Mr. Comey, praised the dismissal, stating, “an independent judiciary vindicated our system of laws not just for Mr. Comey but for all American citizens.” Ms. James’s lawyer, Abbe Lowell, said the ruling highlighted that Mr. Trump “went to extreme measures to substitute one of his allies to bring these baseless charges after career prosecutors refused. This case was not about justice or the law; it was about targeting Attorney General James for what she stood for and who she challenged.”
The legal basis for Judge Currie’s ruling was partly informed by a precedent involving the dismissal of an indictment against Mr. Trump by another judge over questions about the appointment of a special counsel. Earlier in the fall, Mr. Trump had swiftly removed Mr. Siebert after concerns were raised regarding insufficient evidence to charge Mr. Comey and Ms. James. He then appointed Ms. Halligan, a former White House aide with no prior prosecutorial experience, who acted quickly to bring charges at the president’s request.
Mr. Comey was indicted for allegedly lying to and obstructing Congress during testimony in September 2020 about leaks of sensitive political investigations. Ms. James was charged with bank fraud and making false statements on loan documents for a home purchase in Norfolk, Virginia. Ms. James expressed her satisfaction in a statement, saying she was “heartened by today’s victory and grateful for the prayers and support I have received from around the country.”
The dismissal of the Comey indictment could spark a legal debate over whether charges could be refiled by a different prosecutor. Mr. Comey’s indictment was filed just days before the statute of limitations would have expired, with his lawyers contending that the statute has now lapsed, preventing refile. Government prosecutors argued that the clock paused when the indictment was returned, though Mr. Comey’s legal team intends to contest any attempt to revive the case.
Judge Currie noted that Mr. Trump and Ms. Bondi circumvented legal restrictions by elevating Ms. Halligan to lead a key federal prosecutors’ office. The law allows only one interim U.S. attorney to serve a 120-day term, and successive interim appointments, as in this case, are prohibited. The judge emphasized that failure to dismiss the indictments could have allowed the government to appoint virtually anyone to pursue criminal charges, undermining constitutional safeguards.
The ruling also affected other federal cases in the Eastern District of Virginia, with prosecutors instructed to use Ms. Halligan’s deputy’s name in filings instead of hers. Patrick Cotter, a former federal prosecutor, said the dismissal “without prejudice” leaves room for prosecutors to attempt to revive the cases within the statutory period, particularly if appeals extend the timeline. Such rulings likely pause other legal arguments about potential political motivations for the prosecutions, though these could be revisited if the administration’s appeal succeeds.
Judge Currie, a Clinton appointee who typically sits in South Carolina, was assigned after local judges recused themselves to avoid conflicts. Similar procedural issues have arisen in other districts where Trump-appointed loyalists were placed in U.S. attorney offices, though Ms. Halligan’s involvement in the Comey and James cases was unique. She acted alone before grand juries and signed the charging documents herself, leading the judge to conclude the indictments were invalid. Despite the cases being brought separately, the lawyers for both Mr. Comey and Ms. James collaborated in challenging Ms. Halligan’s appointment.
Legal and Political Implications
The rulings highlight the tension between presidential influence over the Justice Department and the legal constraints designed to preserve prosecutorial independence. While the dismissals mark a major procedural defeat for former President Trump, the cases’ future remains uncertain pending appeals. The decisions reinforce that interim appointments in succession are legally impermissible and that the integrity of grand jury indictments relies on adherence to established processes.
Conclusion
The dismissal of charges against James and Comey underscores the judiciary’s role in maintaining legal boundaries and enforcing constitutional requirements in the appointment of federal prosecutors. While the cases may be refiled, the rulings set a clear precedent about the limits of presidential authority over interim prosecutorial appointments.
