Cases against James Comey and Letitia James were dismissed because Lindsey Halligan was unlawfully appointed as interim U.S. Attorney
Executive summary
A federal judge dismissed the indictments against James Comey and Letitia James after finding that interim U.S. Attorney Lindsey Halligan was unlawfully appointed, a ruling that Judge Cameron McGowan Currie said voided “all actions flowing from” her defective appointment [1] [2]. The dismissals were entered “without prejudice,” meaning the Justice Department may seek new indictments if it can cure the appointment defect — but practical obstacles (including statutes of limitations in Comey’s case) and judicial skepticism make the path forward uncertain [3] [4].
1. What the court actually held: a statutory-and-constitutional defect, not a merits ruling
Judge Currie concluded Halligan’s interim appointment violated federal law governing 120‑day interim U.S. attorney appointments and the Appointments Clause, and ruled that because she lacked lawful authority, indictments she secured had to be set aside; Currie framed the problem as the appointment, not the substantive charges against Comey or James [2] [1]. Multiple outlets reported the same legal ground for dismissal: the vacancy window had closed and only the district court could lawfully install a successor, a step the government failed to follow [5] [6].
2. Why the DOJ’s authority to appoint was central and contested
Courts cited 28 U.S.C. §546’s 120‑day limit on the attorney general’s appointment power; Currie found that when that statutory period expired, Bondi no longer could install an interim U.S. attorney and the district court alone had authority — so Bondi’s September appointment of Halligan was invalid [5] [7]. The Justice Department has signaled it will appeal and has tried to distinguish this ruling from other appointments litigation, but judges in multiple matters have expressed frustration that the DOJ continues to list Halligan on filings after the disqualification [8] [9].
3. Practical consequences: “without prejudice” but real obstacles
Currie dismissed the indictments “without prejudice,” which legally permits re‑indictment if the government remedies the authority defect; legal analysts note that could allow new charges by a properly authorized prosecutor [3] [4]. However, reporters and experts flagged immediate practical hurdles: Comey’s alleged offense may be time‑barred, making re‑prosecution difficult even if the DOJ rectifies the appointment issue; the government’s ability to re‑secure grand jury support has already proven uncertain in at least one follow‑on effort [10] [11].
4. Broader pattern and institutional friction
This decision sits amid a string of recent rulings finding certain Trump‑era interim appointments defective, and judges have sharply criticized the DOJ’s refusal in some instances to acknowledge court rulings disqualifying appointees [12] [13]. The Department’s leadership publicly accused some district judges of “bias and hostility” after those judges began striking Halligan’s name from filings — a confrontation that underscores deep institutional strain between the executive branch and parts of the federal judiciary [8] [14].
5. Competing perspectives: DOJ and White House vs. defense and several judges
The DOJ and White House insist the factual allegations underlying the indictments remain unchanged and have vowed appeals and other legal steps; Attorney General Pam Bondi announced immediate appeals and described efforts to hold defendants “accountable,” while White House spokespeople called the ruling a technicality [15] [16]. Defense teams and the judge who dismissed the cases say the record shows a deliberate effort to install a loyalist to pursue politically motivated prosecutions, and they argue the appointment defect tainted the proceedings [7] [2].
6. What comes next and why uncertainty will persist
The government can appeal Currie’s rulings to the Fourth Circuit, seek a new indictment under a properly appointed prosecutor, or pursue other remedial steps — but each path faces legal, procedural and political obstacles [4] [17]. In the near term, judges in the Eastern District of Virginia are actively removing Halligan’s name from filings and questioning the DOJ’s posture, signaling continued adjudicatory friction even as the appeal process unfolds [18] [9].
Limitations and sourcing note: this analysis relies exclusively on the reporting and court descriptions compiled in the cited news sources; available sources do not mention any sealed materials or internal DOJ deliberations beyond public statements and court orders [1] [12].