A federal judge has recently dismissed the criminal cases against former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James. This decision was rooted in the determination that the prosecutor who launched the charges, appointed at the urging of President Donald Trump, was illegally put in position by the Justice Department.
The rulings, issued by U.S. District Judge Cameron McGowan Currie, mark a significant rebuke of the Trump administration’s attempts to target political adversaries. They expose a pattern of legal maneuvering intended to quickly embed a loyalist prosecutor willing to pursue contentious charges in a politically charged atmosphere.
The prosecutor in question, Lindsey Halligan, now joins the ranks of other prosecution figures associated with the Trump administration who have faced disqualification due to the questionable nature of their appointments. Both Comey and James’ legal teams sought to have the charges dismissed with prejudice, which would have barred the Justice Department from re-filing them in the future. However, Judge Currie dismissed the cases without prejudice, leaving open the possibility—though uncertain—of future prosecutorial attempts.
This decision specifically scrutinizes the methodology employed by the Trump administration in appointing Halligan, a former White House aide without prior prosecutorial experience, to one of the Justice Department’s most prestigious offices. Halligan’s appointment came in September after her predecessor, Erik Siebert, was reportedly pressured by the Trump administration to file charges against both Comey and James, suggesting an overtly political motive behind the moves.
Comey’s legal representatives argued that after Siebert’s resignation, it should have been up to the federal court judges to approve the next appointee, not the president. However, Trump’s public nudging, including a Truth Social post urging action against Comey and James—declaring that “JUSTICE MUST BE SERVED, NOW!!!”—gives the impression of a politicized prosecution strategy.
In swift succession, Comey was indicted on allegations of making false statements and obstructing Congress, while James soon faced charges in a mortgage fraud investigation. The timing of these indictments raised eyebrows across the political landscape, suggesting a concerted effort to impede the former FBI director and the attorney general during a particularly contentious period.
The context surrounding these dismissals also reveals a broader trend in which interim U.S. attorneys aligned with Trump have faced disqualification in various jurisdictions, including New Jersey, Los Angeles, and Nevada. While some cases initiated under their leadership have been allowed to continue, Comey and James’ defense teams stressed that Currie’s ruling warranted a more stringent approach since Halligan was both the sole signer of the indictments and a principal player in crafting the charges.
James Comey has long been in Trump’s crosshairs, particularly after he was appointed in 2013 by President Barack Obama. At the time of Trump’s election in 2016, Comey was overseeing an investigation into possible collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia. Trump’s ire erupted when he fired Comey in May 2017, leading to a series of public exchanges filled with animosity between the two.
Letitia James, too, has been a frequent target of Trump’s attacks, especially after winning a substantial judgment against him and the Trump Organization for fraudulently inflating the value of his real estate assets. Although an appeals court eventually overturned a gargantuan fine exceeding $500 million with interest, it upheld earlier findings that Trump had indeed committed fraud.