• Federal judge rules Trump-appointed prosecutor lacked legal authority
  • Both indictments thrown out due to Appointments Clause violations
  • Ruling delivers major setback to administration’s political prosecutions

ALEXANDRIA, Va. (TDR) — A federal judge dismissed criminal indictments against former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James on Monday, ruling that the prosecutor who brought both cases was illegally appointed in violation of federal law and the Constitution.

U.S. District Judge Cameron McGowan Currie concluded that Attorney General Pam Bondi’s appointment of Lindsey Halligan as interim U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia violated both 28 U.S.C. § 546 and the Appointments Clause, rendering the indictments invalid.

“I agree with Mr. Comey that the Attorney General’s attempt to install Ms. Halligan as Interim U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia was invalid. And because Ms. Halligan had no lawful authority to present the indictment, I will grant Mr. Comey’s motion and dismiss the indictment without prejudice.”

Freedom-Loving Beachwear by Red Beach Nation - Save 10% With Code RVM10

The dismissals were issued without prejudice, meaning prosecutors could theoretically attempt to bring charges again—though the statute of limitations on Comey’s charges has already expired.

Background on the Cases

The prosecutions emerged amid public pressure from the White House. President Donald Trump had repeatedly demanded action against his perceived adversaries on social media, complaining to Bondi that “nothing is being done” about Comey and others.

Comey faced two felony counts—making false statements to Congress and obstruction of a congressional proceeding—stemming from his September 2020 testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee. The charges focused on whether Comey authorized media leaks about FBI investigations during his tenure.

James was indicted in October on charges of bank fraud and making false statements related to a 2020 mortgage on a Norfolk, Virginia property. Prosecutors alleged she misrepresented an investment property as a second home to obtain favorable loan terms, with total alleged gains of approximately $19,000 over the loan’s life.

The Appointment Controversy

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE THE DUPREE REPORT

Are you glad President Trump is building the new WH ballroom?

By completing the poll, you agree to receive emails from The Dupree Report, occasional offers from our partners and that you've read and agree to our privacy policy and legal statement.

The legal dispute centered on how Halligan came to oversee both prosecutions. Under federal law, the Attorney General may appoint an interim U.S. Attorney for up to 120 days. After that period expires, federal judges have authority to fill the vacancy.

Erik Siebert had served as interim U.S. Attorney and was unanimously reappointed by Eastern District judges after his initial term expired. However, Siebert resigned in September after Trump publicly stated he wanted him “out” for failing to bring charges against James despite career prosecutors concluding evidence was insufficient.

“When I saw that he got approved by those two men, I said, pull it, because he can’t be any good. When I learned that they voted for him, I said, I don’t really want him.”

Days later, Bondi installed Halligan—a former personal attorney for Trump with no prior prosecutorial experience. Just four days after her appointment, Halligan personally presented the Comey case to a grand jury.

Grand Jury Irregularities

The cases were further complicated by procedural problems. Halligan admitted during hearings that the full grand jury never reviewed the final version of Comey’s indictment—only the foreperson and one other juror saw the document.

A magistrate judge had previously found “genuine issues of misconduct” in the prosecution, characterizing the approach as “indict first, investigate later.”

Political and Legal Implications

The dismissals mark the latest instance of courts rejecting prosecutorial appointments made outside normal channels. Both defendants characterized their prosecutions as examples of weaponizing the Department of Justice against political opponents.

Does this ruling signal broader limits on executive branch authority to bypass Senate confirmation for federal prosecutors?

Freedom-Loving Beachwear by Red Beach Nation - Save 10% With Code RVM10