Judge Dismisses James Comey, Letitia James Charges Over Halligan/ Newslooks/ WASHINGTON/ J. Mansour/ Morning Edition/ A federal judge dismissed criminal charges against James Comey and Letitia James, ruling the prosecutor behind the indictments was illegally appointed. The decision delivers a legal setback to the Trump administration’s efforts to prosecute political rivals. The Justice Department may still attempt to refile the cases.
Comey, James Indictments Dropped Quick Looks
- Judge dismisses indictments against James Comey, Letitia James
- Prosecutor Lindsey Halligan ruled illegally appointed by DOJ
- Dismissal without prejudice leaves door open for refiling
- Halligan, a Trump loyalist, lacked prosecutorial experience
- DOJ pressured interim attorney to file political cases
- Trump previously called for swift action against opponents
- Comey, James have long been Trump targets
- Judicial rebuke raises concerns over legal politicization
Judge Dismisses James Comey, Letitia James Charges Over Halligan
Deep Look
In a decisive legal blow to the Trump administration’s campaign against political adversaries, a federal judge on Monday dismissed criminal charges brought against former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James. U.S. District Judge Cameron McGowan Currie ruled that the special prosecutor leading the case, Lindsey Halligan, was illegally appointed by the Justice Department.
The dismissals mark a major setback in the administration’s efforts to bring high-profile legal action against prominent figures who have long been critical of President Donald Trump. Although the judge’s order dismissed the cases without prejudice—technically allowing for the charges to be refiled—it casts serious doubt on the legal basis of the prosecutions and the method of appointing the lead prosecutor.
At the heart of the ruling is Halligan’s appointment. A former White House aide with no previous prosecutorial background, Halligan was chosen in September after the resignation of interim U.S. Attorney Erik Siebert, who reportedly faced internal pressure from the Trump administration to move forward with charges. Judge Currie found that Halligan’s appointment bypassed standard procedures, notably excluding the federal district court from playing its legally mandated role in selecting a replacement.
Critics say Halligan’s installation was driven by political motivation rather than legal necessity. After Siebert’s departure, Trump took to his Truth Social platform, calling for immediate prosecution of his rivals. “JUSTICE MUST BE SERVED, NOW!!!” he wrote—urging his administration to act swiftly. Comey was charged days later with making false statements and obstructing Congress, while James was soon indicted in a separate mortgage fraud case.
In court, defense attorneys for both Comey and James argued that Halligan was not only improperly appointed but also the sole official behind the grand jury indictments, making her legal standing crucial to the validity of the charges. Judge Currie appeared to agree, stating that Halligan’s central role made the legality of her appointment impossible to ignore.
While similar procedural challenges have led to disqualifications of U.S. attorneys in other jurisdictions, such as New Jersey, Los Angeles, and Nevada, those cases continued under new prosecutors. This case, however, was unique in that Halligan was the sole signatory on the indictments and the driving force behind both prosecutions.
James Comey has been a central figure in Trump’s ongoing grievances since he led the FBI during the 2016 presidential campaign and investigated alleged ties between the Trump campaign and Russia. His firing in 2017 marked the beginning of a contentious and public feud, with Trump frequently labeling Comey as a political enemy.
Letitia James, New York’s Attorney General, also emerged as a consistent critic of Trump. Her office won a massive legal judgment against the former president and the Trump Organization for inflating property values on financial statements. Although an appeals court later overturned a $500 million fine, it upheld the lower court’s finding that Trump had committed fraud.
The dismissal of both criminal cases is not only a win for Comey and James but also a broader judicial rebuke of what some legal scholars view as the politicization of the Justice Department. Halligan now joins a growing list of prosecutors appointed during Trump’s presidency who have been disqualified over legal or procedural irregularities.
What remains unclear is whether the Justice Department will seek to revive the prosecutions through other legal means. The cases were dismissed without prejudice, allowing for potential re-indictment—though that would likely trigger fresh scrutiny over fairness, motive, and process.
For now, however, the ruling serves as a reminder of the delicate balance between law and politics, and how judicial oversight can act as a check when that balance is tested.
You must Register or Login to post a comment.