A federal judge’s decision to dismiss the Trump administration’s criminal cases against former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James represents one of the most significant judicial rebukes of executive-driven prosecutions in recent years. While the ruling does not address the truth or falsity of the allegations against either official, it strikes at the root of how these prosecutions were constructed—raising profound questions about separation of powers, politicization of the Justice Department, and the limits of presidential influence over federal prosecutors.
U.S. District Judge Cameron McGowan Currie concluded that Lindsey Halligan, the interim U.S. attorney who filed the charges, had been illegally appointed by the Justice Department. The finding hinges on a very technical—yet crucial—portion of federal law governing interim appointments to U.S. attorney positions. Once an interim appointment expires after 120 days, only the federal district court may appoint a replacement. The Trump administration attempted to circumvent this rule by repeatedly re-appointing Halligan unilaterally and later giving her the title of “Special Attorney.”
Currie rejected these moves outright, calling them unlawful expansions of executive authority.
Why the Appointment Was Ruled Illegal
Federal law gives the Attorney General the power to appoint an interim U.S. attorney only for 120 days. After that period, the appointment authority shifts exclusively to the district court.
This is meant to prevent political manipulation—ensuring that the administration cannot indefinitely install a loyalist as chief federal prosecutor without Senate confirmation.
Erik Siebert, the previous interim U.S. attorney, reached the end of that 120-day window in May 2025. When Siebert was pressured to resign because he resisted filing politically charged cases against Trump’s critics, the administration immediately installed Halligan—an inexperienced White House aide—as his replacement.
Judge Currie ruled that this exceeded DOJ authority, and therefore:
- Halligan’s appointment was invalid.
- She had no legal power to present cases to a grand jury.
- ANY indictment she obtained was therefore void.
Her later “Special Attorney” title also could not save the cases, because such an appointment cannot retroactively validate grand jury proceedings already completed unlawfully.
Political Context and the Stakes
The Comey and James indictments were among the most politically charged in American history.
James Comey
Comey has long clashed with Trump. His firing in 2017 set off the Mueller investigation. Trump has frequently accused him of corruption and conspiracy.
The dismissed charges accused Comey of:
- making false statements
- obstructing Congress
Comey called the prosecution a “malevolent, incompetent reflection of what DOJ has become.”
Letitia James
The New York AG led one of the most consequential civil fraud cases against Donald Trump, resulting in a massive judgment. Trump has repeatedly labeled her a political enemy.
She faced mortgage fraud charges—charges she called “baseless” and retaliatory.
Both defendants argued that the prosecutions were forms of political retribution. Today’s dismissal fuels those claims.
Why the Dismissal Matters Nationally
Separation of Powers
The ruling underscores the limits on executive authority. Even in a politically charged environment, the Constitution restricts a president’s ability to leverage the Justice Department as a tool against political opponents.
Judicial Independence
Currie’s decision is one of the strongest judicial pushbacks against the Trump administration’s more aggressive interpretations of DOJ power during the shutdown era.
Future Prosecutions
Since the judge dismissed the cases without prejudice, prosecutors could theoretically attempt to refile them. However:
- In Comey’s case, the statute of limitations has expired.
- For Letitia James, refiling is possible but faces steep legal and political barriers.
Pros and Cons of the Ruling
Pros
1. Protects the integrity of federal prosecutions
Allowing an improperly appointed U.S. attorney to initiate major cases would set a dangerous precedent. The ruling prevents DOJ from bypassing checks meant to prevent political weaponization.
2. Reinforces constitutional separation of powers
By affirming that courts—not presidents—control extended interim appointments, the ruling strengthens the judiciary’s independence.
3. Prevents politically motivated prosecutions
Given the president’s public calls to “SERVE JUSTICE, NOW!!!” against his critics, the ruling helps ensure legal outcomes aren’t dictated by political vendettas.
4. Restores public confidence in due process
Even people who believe in the substance of the allegations may acknowledge that cases must be brought lawfully to be legitimate.
Cons
1. Does not answer the underlying allegations
The ruling avoids addressing the evidence against Comey or James, leaving critics claiming they escaped accountability on a technicality.
2. Opens the door for DOJ to refile charges
This prolongs national political tension and keeps both defendants in legal limbo.
3. Fuels partisan distrust
Supporters of Trump may view this as evidence of a biased judiciary blocking accountability for Democrats.
Supporters of James and Comey view the case as proof of authoritarian overreach.
4. Undermines stability within DOJ
The ruling exposes confusion and dysfunction in DOJ leadership during the shutdown crisis, raising questions about legal oversight during emergency staffing situations.
Neutral Overall Assessment
The dismissal reflects the tension between the Trump administration’s desire to aggressively prosecute individuals it believes committed serious wrongdoing and the structural safeguards intended to prevent political manipulation of the justice system.
The judge did not rule on guilt or innocence—only legality. The message is clear: process matters, and even the president cannot cut corners to achieve his desired outcomes.
Whether this leads to refiling of charges, sweeping appeals, or further political escalation remains to be seen. But the ruling stands as a major moment in the evolving struggle over the boundaries of executive power in the United States.
A federal judge’s decision to dismiss the Trump administration’s criminal cases against former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James represents one of the most significant judicial rebukes of executive-driven prosecutions in recent years. While the ruling does not address the truth or falsity of the allegations against either official, it