In a significant legal development that could reshape ongoing federal prosecutions, a federal judge has thrown out criminal indictments against former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James, ruling that the prosecutor who brought the charges lacked the legal authority to do so.
U.S. District Judge Cameron McGowan Currie of South Carolina delivered the decisive ruling on November 24, declaring that Lindsey Halligan’s appointment as interim U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia violated federal law. The judge’s order went further, invalidating all prosecutorial actions stemming from Halligan’s controversial appointment.
“All actions” flowing from Halligan’s appointment represented “unlawful exercises of executive power and are hereby set aside,” Judge Currie wrote in the comprehensive ruling that effectively dismantled the high-profile cases.
The dismissal represents a major setback for the Trump administration’s legal strategy and raises questions about the validity of other prosecutions that may have originated from similarly questionable appointments. Halligan had been named to the interim position by the Trump administration, a move that has now been determined to have exceeded proper executive authority.
The cases against Comey, who served as FBI Director from 2013 to 2017, and James, New York’s current Attorney General, had attracted significant attention given their prominent roles in American politics and law enforcement. Comey gained national prominence for his handling of investigations during the 2016 presidential election, while James has been a vocal critic of Trump administration policies and has pursued various legal actions against former President Trump.
The judge’s ruling highlights ongoing tensions over prosecutorial appointments and the proper limits of executive power in the federal justice system. Legal experts suggest the decision could have broader implications for how interim prosecutors are appointed and the scope of their authority to bring charges against high-profile defendants.
This development comes at a time when questions about prosecutorial independence and political influence in the justice system continue to dominate legal and political discourse. The dismissal on procedural grounds means the substantive allegations against both Comey and James remain unresolved, though any future prosecution would require proper prosecutorial authority.
The ruling underscores the critical importance of following proper appointment procedures in federal prosecutions, particularly in cases involving prominent political figures. Judge Currie’s decision serves as a reminder that procedural irregularities can derail even the most high-profile criminal cases, regardless of the underlying allegations.
Both Comey and James have yet to publicly comment on the dismissal, though the ruling represents a significant legal victory for both defendants who had challenged the validity of the prosecutions from the outset.
