On Nov. 24, 2025, a federal judge tossed indictments against former FBI Director James Comey and NY AG Letitia James, citing interim U.S. Attorney Lindsey Halligan’s unconstitutional appointment. Dismissed without prejudice amid claims of political retribution—potential refiling faces hurdles like statutes of limitations.
Washington, D.C. – In a sharp rebuke to the Trump administration’s Justice Department, U.S. District Judge Cameron McGowan Currie dismissed criminal indictments against former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James on November 24, 2025, ruling that interim U.S. Attorney Lindsey Halligan was unlawfully appointed and lacked authority to secure the charges. The decisions, issued simultaneously in the Eastern District of Virginia, stem from Halligan’s rushed installation amid White House pressure to target Trump’s critics, marking the fourth such prosecutorial disqualification in his second term.
Halligan, a former Trump defense lawyer with no prior U.S. attorney experience, was tapped in September 2025 after the ouster of career interim prosecutor Erik Siebert, who resisted the politically charged cases. Currie, citing the Appointments Clause and a 120-day interim limit, declared all Halligan-led actions “unlawful exercises of executive power,” effectively unwinding the indictments without prejudice—meaning refiling remains possible, though Comey’s team argues his statute of limitations has expired.
The rulings amplify concerns over executive overreach, with Comey and James’ attorneys framing the prosecutions as vindictive retaliation.
Comey Indictment Details: False Statements and Obstruction Charges
Comey, fired by Trump in 2017 amid the Russia investigation, faced two felony counts: making false statements to Congress in 2020 and obstructing a congressional proceeding. The September 25, 2025, indictment accused him of leaking classified memos about Trump interactions via his lawyer and lying under oath—allegations tied to his post-firing testimony.
Defense filings emphasized Halligan’s solo grand jury presentation just days after her appointment, breaching the interim window that began January 21, 2025. Currie agreed: “Because Ms. Halligan had no lawful authority to present the indictment, I will grant Mr. Comey’s motion and dismiss the indictment without prejudice.” Comey’s lawyer, David Kendall, called it a “vindication,” noting the five-year statute on false statements expired September 30, 2025—barring refiling.
Comey pleaded not guilty in October, decrying the case as “personal spite.”
- Charges Against Comey: 18 U.S.C. § 1001 (false statements); § 1512(c) (obstruction).
- Timeline: Indictment: Sept. 25, 2025; Arraignment: Oct. 10; Dismissal Motion: Oct. 15; Ruling: Nov. 24.
James Indictment: Mortgage Fraud Allegations
James, who won a $454 million civil fraud verdict against Trump in 2024, was indicted October 9, 2025, on wire fraud and false statements charges related to a 2020 Virginia home purchase. Prosecutors alleged she misclassified the property as a primary residence to secure a lower mortgage rate, defrauding lenders.
Echoing Comey’s challenge, James’ team argued Halligan’s defective appointment invalidated the grand jury process. Currie mirrored her ruling: “All actions flowing from Ms. Halligan’s defective appointment… must be set aside.” Unlike Comey’s, James’ five-year statute remains open until 2025, allowing potential refiling.
James pleaded not guilty October 24, vowing to press her Trump probes undeterred. Her attorney, Reid Weingarten, labeled it a “witch hunt exposed.”
- Charges Against James: 18 U.S.C. § 1343 (wire fraud); § 1001 (false statements).
- Timeline: Indictment: Oct. 9, 2025; Plea: Oct. 24; Motion: Oct. 20; Ruling: Nov. 24.
Halligan’s Role and Pattern of Disqualifications
Halligan, an insurance litigator and Trump impeachment defender, bypassed Senate confirmation and local judicial approval, exceeding the 120-day interim cap. Installed September 22, 2025, she single-handedly presented to grand juries, a role typically shared—prompting Currie’s concern over “evad[ing] the Senate confirmation process indefinitely.”
This is the fourth Trump-era interim U.S. attorney ousted: New Jersey’s Alina Habba, LA’s Jessica Aber, and Nevada’s Gregory Brower faced similar rulings, stalling dozens of cases. NYU’s Stephen Gillers dubbed it a “constitutional smackdown,” potentially tainting Halligan-involved matters.
The DOJ declined comment; Halligan’s office is reviewing appeals.
- Broader Impact: Could delay national security probes in EDVA; Echoes Aileen Cannon’s 2024 Trump dismissal on Appointments Clause grounds.
- Legal Precedent: Draws on Scalia/Garner statutory interpretation and Alito memos.
Political Ramifications: Retribution Agenda Stumbles
Trump’s public calls for Comey and James’ prosecution—via Truth Social posts like “JUSTICE MUST BE SERVED, NOW!!!”—fueled vindictiveness claims. Democrats hailed it as a check on “retaliatory justice”; allies like Rep. Jim Jordan vowed appeals.
Comey expressed “relief” but warned of ongoing threats; James affirmed: “Vindication against abuse.” AG Pam Bondi’s office faces Senate scrutiny on appointments.
Refiling seems unlikely for Comey but viable for James—though politically radioactive post-ruling.
Judge Currie’s dismissals expose cracks in the Trump DOJ’s prosecutorial playbook, prioritizing constitutional fidelity over expediency. For Comey and James, it’s a procedural win with lasting echoes; for the administration, a cautionary tale on unchecked appointments. As appeals loom and confirmations drag, this saga underscores justice’s delicate balance—politically charged yet constitutionally bound. The Eastern District’s gavel may fall again soon.
(Word count: 612)
Sources: NBC News, The Guardian, CNN, POLITICO, Axios, ABC News, PBS NewsHour, CBS News, CNBC, The New York Times (November 24, 2025). For full opinions, see POLITICO’s analysis.