A federal judge has delivered a stunning legal rebuke to the Trump administration, ordering the immediate dismissal of criminal charges against former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James. The judge ruled that the prosecutor who secured the indictments was unlawfully appointed by the Justice Department, rendering the charges invalid.
The ruling on Monday from U.S. District Judge Cameron McGowan Currie puts an abrupt halt to two politically charged prosecutions that targeted two of President Donald Trump’s most visible and persistent political opponents.
The Grounds for Dismissal: A Defective Appointment
The judge’s decision did not address the substance of the allegations against Comey (who was charged with making false statements and obstructing Congress) or James (who faced charges of bank fraud). Instead, the dismissal rested entirely on the legal mechanism used to install the interim U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, Lindsey Halligan.
- The Conflict: The Trump administration had pushed out the previous interim U.S. Attorney, Erik Siebert, and replaced him with Halligan—a former White House aide with no prior prosecutorial experience—in September 2025. This move came amid immense public pressure from the President to charge his political foes.
- The Judge’s Finding: Judge Currie concluded that the Attorney General’s attempt to install Halligan was invalid because the legal window for the Attorney General to make such an interim appointment had already expired. She ruled that the power to appoint a temporary U.S. Attorney had shifted to the federal court of the district itself.
- The Ruling’s Scope: “All actions flowing from Ms. Halligan’s defective appointment, including securing and signing [the] indictment, were unlawful exercises of executive power and are hereby set aside,” Judge Currie wrote in her opinion. She stressed that accepting the government’s argument would essentially allow the administration to bypass the Senate confirmation process indefinitely.
Vindication and Retribution
The ruling was immediately hailed as a major victory for both defendants, who have consistently argued that the cases were a thinly veiled effort by the Trump administration to punish them for their political opposition.
- James’s Response: New York Attorney General Letitia James stated she was “heartened by today’s victory” and vowed to remain “fearless in the face of these baseless charges as I continue fighting for New Yorkers every single day.”
- Comey’s Reaction: James Comey, who was a key figure in the investigation into the 2016 Trump campaign, released a video saying, “A message has to be sent that the president of the United States cannot use the Department of Justice to target his political enemies.”
The Next Move: Appeal and Statute of Limitations
Judge Currie dismissed the cases without prejudice, meaning the Justice Department theoretically has the right to refile the charges under a lawfully appointed prosecutor. However, this is complicated by two major factors:
- Statute of Limitations: Lawyers for Comey immediately argued that the five-year deadline to bring charges against him had already expired just days after he was indicted in September. Since the original indictment was ruled invalid, it did not pause the running of the clock.
- Immediate Appeal: Attorney General Pam Bondi vowed to pursue “all available legal action, including an immediate appeal” of the ruling, indicating that the administration is determined to press the charges against the two high-profile critics.
The decision is the most sweeping legal repudiation yet of the Trump administration’s aggressive efforts to place political loyalists in top prosecutorial positions and deploy the Justice Department as a tool against its perceived adversaries.