Judge dismisses Comey and James indictments over unlawful prosecutor appointment

On November 24, 2025, federal judge Cameron McGowan Currie dropped criminal charges against James B. Comey, the former FBI director, and Letitia James, New York’s attorney general — not because the evidence was weak, but because the prosecutor who brought the cases never had the legal authority to do so. The ruling, issued from the U.S. District Court in South Carolina, sent shockwaves through Washington, D.C., and beyond. This wasn’t about guilt or innocence. It was about power — and whether a president can appoint someone to go after political enemies.

How a Single Appointment Derailed Two Major Cases

The root of the collapse? Lindsey Halligan, a lawyer appointed by former President Donald J. Trump in late 2024 as interim U.S. Attorney. Halligan was selected after the previous U.S. Attorney, reportedly under pressure from the White House, refused to pursue charges against Trump’s political adversaries. The appointment bypassed Senate confirmation entirely — a violation of the Federal Vacancies Reform Act and the Appointments Clause of the Constitution. Judge Currie didn’t question the seriousness of the allegations against Comey or James. She didn’t even evaluate the evidence. Her decision was surgical: “All actions flowing from Ms. Halligan’s deceptive appointment… are hereby set aside.” That’s it. No merits review. Just a clean sweep.

What made this even more striking was the timing. Comey, who led the FBI during the 2016 election and later became a lightning rod for Trump’s ire, was indicted on unspecified federal charges. James, who has led multiple civil investigations into the Trump Organization, faced separate federal allegations. Both were high-profile targets. But under federal law, only Senate-confirmed U.S. Attorneys — or properly appointed acting officials under strict time limits — can bring criminal indictments. Halligan, appointed without Senate approval and beyond the 120-day statutory window for interim appointments, was never authorized. The result? Everything she touched was tainted.

Who’s Behind the Prosecution — And Why It Matters

According to PBS NewsHour’s reporting, Halligan was specifically chosen to pursue politically motivated cases. Her mandate, insiders say, was to act where other prosecutors wouldn’t. That’s not just unusual — it’s dangerous. As Carrie Johnson, NPR’s justice correspondent, noted during the broadcast, “This is the first time a federal judge has invalidated indictments against a sitting state attorney general and a former cabinet official purely on appointment grounds.”

The Department of Justice, headquartered at 950 Pennsylvania Avenue NW in Washington, D.C., under Acting Attorney General Pamela Karlan, immediately announced it would appeal. “Lindsay Halligan is extremely qualified for this position, but more importantly, was legally…” — the statement, truncated in the transcript, clearly implies the DOJ believes the appointment was valid. But legal experts disagree. The Constitution’s Appointments Clause exists for a reason: to prevent the executive branch from stacking the judiciary and prosecutorial system with loyalists.

And this wasn’t an isolated case. Halligan’s office also pursued other politically charged investigations during her tenure — all now in legal limbo. The Federal Bureau of Investigation, where Comey served from 2013 to 2017, and the New York State Office of the Attorney General, based in Albany, are now left to assess what, if anything, can move forward under new leadership.

The Ripple Effect: What This Means for Federal Prosecutions

Legal scholars warn this decision could trigger a wave of challenges. If a president can appoint an interim prosecutor to target opponents, where does it stop? Could the next administration do the same? Judge Currie’s ruling is a clear signal: the rule of law isn’t optional, even when politics are at stake.

It also raises a troubling precedent. The DOJ’s own internal guidelines prohibit using U.S. Attorneys for political purposes. Halligan’s appointment — and the indictments that followed — appear to have violated those norms at the highest level. The fact that the charges were dismissed on procedural grounds doesn’t make them less politically charged. It makes them more dangerous. It shows how easily the machinery of justice can be weaponized.

And while the Department of Justice plans to appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit within 72 hours, the outcome is uncertain. If the appellate court upholds Currie’s ruling, it could force Congress to revisit the Vacancies Reform Act — or even prompt a Supreme Court review. Either way, the message is clear: no one, not even a president, is above the Constitution’s appointment rules.

What Happens Next?

The immediate next step is the DOJ’s appeal, expected by November 27, 2025. But beyond that, several questions remain unanswered. Will Halligan’s office be restructured? Will new prosecutors be appointed to reevaluate the cases under lawful authority? And will Congress act to close the loophole that allowed this to happen?

For Comey, the dismissal is a temporary reprieve — but not vindication. For James, it’s a pause in what could have been an unprecedented federal prosecution of a state attorney general. Both remain under scrutiny. But for now, the cases are gone — not because they lacked merit, but because the system itself was broken.