A federal court ruling has caused the headline: Judge tosses indictments against former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James. On Nov. 24, 2025, U.S. District Judge Cameron McGowan Currie dismissed both indictments after finding that the prosecutor who brought the cases lacked lawful authority to do so.
This decision wipes out two high-profile criminal actions and raises broader questions about prosecutorial appointments, statute of limitations, and political influence in the justice system. Below is a detailed look at how the cases developed, the legal reasoning behind the ruling, the implications for the parties involved, and what may happen next.
Background of the indictments
James Comey
James Comey, who served as FBI Director from 2013 to 2017, was indicted in a federal grand jury in the Eastern District of Virginia. The charges included false statements to Congress and obstruction of a congressional proceeding tied to his testimony and handling of leaks and investigations during his time at the FBI.
Letitia James
Letitia James, the Attorney General of New York, was indicted on charges involving alleged mortgage-related misconduct and false statements to a financial institution. The matter concerned a property she purchased and how it was characterized for loan purposes.
In both cases, the government’s move to indict came after significant pressure and media attention. Career prosecutors in the office reportedly declined to take the cases, citing insufficient evidence and other concerns. Shortly thereafter, the interim U.S. attorney who filed the charges was appointed under contested circumstances.
The contested appointment and why it mattered
At the heart of the ruling is the appointment of Lindsey Halligan as interim U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia. She replaced Erik Siebert, who had earlier served as interim U.S. attorney but resisted pursuing the Comey and James matters.
Federal statute allows an Attorney General to appoint an interim U.S. attorney for up to 120 days. After that, the vacancy must be filled by Senate-confirmed nomination or a court-appointed U.S. attorney. In this case, Halligan’s appointment occurred after that 120-day period had expired, according to the court’s ruling, meaning she lacked lawful authority to act.
Judge Currie found that because the appointment was invalid, all actions she took—including seeking and obtaining indictments—were likewise void. The ruling states in effect that a prosecutor who lacks appointment under statute cannot rely on grand juries, sign indictments, or continue to lead a case. That rendered the charges against Comey and James legally defective.
The ruling itself: What the judge found and the outcome
On Nov. 24, Judge Currie dismissed both indictments without prejudice. That means the charges are thrown out for now, but the government may attempt to refile under a properly appointed prosecutor.
Key holding points:
- The Attorney General’s power to appoint an interim U.S. attorney had expired when the prior interim’s 120-day tenure concluded.
- Halligan’s subsequent appointment and actions were therefore invalid from the start.
- Because she was the only prosecutor who signed the indictments in both cases, the entire prosecutions were tainted.
- The judge emphasized that allowing her appointment to stand would permit bypassing Senate confirmation and undermine constitutional safeguards.
The dismissal without prejudice signals that the government keeps the option to re-charge, but practical obstacles may remain. For example, in the Comey case the statute of limitations may have expired, making reindictment far more difficult.
Immediate reaction from both sides
The Justice Department announced it intends to appeal the decision and examine all available legal remedies. The department emphasized that the dismissal was procedural and did not reflect a judgment on the underlying evidence or guilt of the individuals.
James Comey’s defense team praised the ruling, calling it “vindication” and an affirmation of the rule of law. Comey himself issued a statement saying the case “was based on a defective process and a flawed appointment.”
Letitia James’s team likewise expressed relief. Attorney General James said she was “gratified” by the decision and that the outcome reinforced the importance of proper process. Both defendants maintained their pleas of not guilty.
Broader legal and political implications
Procedural integrity matters
This ruling serves as a reminder that no matter how high-profile the accused or how visible the allegations, prosecutorial power must rest on a lawful foundation. Even the strongest case can collapse if built on a defective appointment. Legal experts say the decision reinforces that statute and structure matter.
Potential effect on future prosecutions
Other pending or past cases may face scrutiny if interim U.S. attorneys were appointed under comparable circumstances. The ruling may inspire defense teams to challenge the legitimacy of prosecutorial appointments in their cases.
Political overtones
The cases against Comey and James involved politically sensitive figures: Comey had been a leading critic of former President Trump’s handling of the Russia investigation; James had brought civil fraud cases against Trump and his organization. While the government declined that motive was the driving factor, the ruling nonetheless underscores how political dynamics and justice-system structure intersect.
Statute of limitations concerns
Because the Comey indictment was obtained just days before the expiration of the relevant statute of limitations, analysts say it may now be effectively dead. Without a legally proper indictment, the government may lack the ability to re-charge. In James’s case, the government retains more time, but still faces the hurdle of starting anew under a new prosecutor with renewed grand-jury proceedings, evidence gathering and litigation.
What happens next for the defendants
For James Comey, the ruling likely ends the immediate threat of prosecution. If the statute of limitations has truly expired, the government’s ability to re-indict may be eliminated altogether, barring extraordinary exceptions.
For Attorney General Letitia James, the door remains ajar. If the Department of Justice appoints a properly confirmed interim U.S. attorney or obtains a court-appointed replacement, the charges could be re-filed. However, starting over is operationally challenging: grand juries must reconvene, evidence must be reviewed, and the case must be rebuilt from base. That delay may bolster James’s defense position and reduce the probability of a successful re-prosecution.
Timeline of the case
- January 21, 2025: Erik Siebert begins as interim U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia.
- By May 21, 2025: The 120-day statutory period for the Attorney General’s appointment expires.
- September 2025: President Trump and Attorney General Bondi press for new indictments; Siebert steps aside. Halligan is appointed as interim U.S. attorney.
- Late September 2025: The indictment of James Comey is unsealed.
- October 2025: Indictment of Letitia James is filed.
- November 24, 2025: Judge Currie dismisses both indictments, ruling Halligan’s appointment unlawful.
Key legal lessons
- A prosecutor must be validly appointed to file an indictment. If appointment is flawed, any subsequent prosecutorial acts may be void.
- A dismissal without prejudice allows the government to re-file charges, but practical limits (statute of limitations, evidence, grand-jury proceedings) can make re-filing difficult.
- Political sensitivity does not shield against procedural standards; indeed, high-profile cases may face increased scrutiny on process.
- Defense strategy increasingly may include challenges to the chain of appointment and prosecutorial authority, especially in cases involving acting or interim officials.
What this means for the justice system
This ruling signals that courts will enforce the boundaries of prosecutorial power—even in politically charged cases. It acts as a check against efforts to use interim appointments to sidestep Senate confirmation or other accountability mechanisms.
The decision also reinforces the idea that the legitimacy of a prosecution depends not just on evidence, but on the legal foundation of the process. In an era of heightened polarization, maintaining procedural safeguards becomes even more essential to preserve public confidence in the justice system.
That said, the government retains tools to pursue new indictments under proper appointment structures. The key now is whether it chooses to do so, and whether it can overcome the operational burdens in restarting these matters.
Conclusion
The ruling in which a Judge tosses indictments against James Comey and Letitia James marks a dramatic moment in U.S. legal and political affairs. Two major prosecutions—each tied to prominent figures—were undone not by a ruling on guilt or innocence, but by a finding that the person bringing the charges lacked lawful authority. The decision throws open questions about prosecution strategy, statute of limitations, and the interplay of power in Washington. For the defendants, it offers both relief and perhaps finality; for the justice system, it underscores the enduring importance of process. With appeals likely and potential refiling possible, this story remains far from over—but for now, the spotlight is on the rule of law itself.
What are your thoughts on this decision and its implications? Feel free to share your view in the comments below and stay tuned for the next developments.