What are the latest rulings or case statuses involving Letitia James and James Comey as of November 2025?
Executive summary
A federal judge on Nov. 24, 2025, dismissed the criminal indictments against former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James, finding that Lindsey Halligan’s appointment as interim U.S. attorney was unlawful and that actions she took must be set aside [1] [2]. The dismissals were entered “without prejudice,” so re‑filing is theoretically possible though Comey’s team says the statute of limitations may bar a new indictment in his case [3] [1].
1. A judge’s procedural ruling, not a factual vindication
Senior U.S. District Judge Cameron Currie threw out the Comey and Letitia James indictments on the ground that Pam Bondi’s installation of Lindsey Halligan as interim U.S. attorney violated the law; Currie concluded Halligan had been “unlawfully serving” since Sept. 22, 2025, and that all actions flowing from that defective appointment must be set aside [3] [2]. Multiple outlets describe the decision as rooted in appointment‑authority rules rather than the merits of the underlying allegations [4] [5].
2. “Without prejudice” — what that means and its limits
Courts described Currie’s dismissals as made “without prejudice,” meaning prosecutors could try again under a properly appointed U.S. attorney [3] [6]. Commentators and some news outlets note uncertainty about whether the government can re‑file in practice: Comey’s lawyers point to a five‑year statute of limitations that expired Sept. 30, 2025, which they say may block a new indictment in his case, while other legal analysts warn re‑filing could still be possible depending on legal maneuvering [1] [7] [8].
3. Immediate reactions and next procedural steps
The Justice Department and White House spokespeople signaled they would appeal or pursue all available legal options, with officials saying the underlying allegations remain unchanged and an appeal was likely [1] [9]. Letitia James and James Comey both welcomed the rulings as victories; James called it a reaffirmation of her work and Comey warned publicly he expected more political targeting [10] [11] [2].
4. Where the appointment fight came from
Reporting traces the dispute to the resignation or removal of the prior U.S. attorney (Siebert) and Attorney General Pam Bondi’s appointment of Halligan — a White House aide with little to no prosecutorial track record — to serve as interim U.S. attorney, a move that critics argued flouted statutory limits on who may fill vacancies and for how long [3] [12]. Currie’s opinion framed Bondi’s installation of Halligan as an “unlawful exercise of executive power” that infected subsequent grand jury actions [3] [4].
5. Differences between the two defendants’ practical exposure
News outlets emphasize practical distinctions: Letitia James was charged with bank/mortgage‑fraud allegations and her case was dismissed; re‑indictment is legally possible in theory [11] [12]. By contrast, Reuters, The Guardian and others note that Comey faces a potentially fatal statute‑of‑limitations hurdle, making re‑indictment less feasible if courts accept that clock defense [1] [7] [3].
6. Legal and political context — competing narratives
Conservative and right‑leaning outlets framed the ruling as a temporary setback for prosecutions of political opponents but argued the facts could support renewed charges [13] [6]. Mainstream and left‑leaning outlets framed Currie’s decision as a rebuke of fast‑tracked, politically motivated use of DOJ appointments to target perceived foes of the president [4] [3]. Both frames appear in the record: government officials pledge appeals, while defense teams tout procedural invalidation [9] [11].
7. Unanswered questions and immediate litigation horizon
Available sources do not mention the precise timetable or the specific legal vehicle the Justice Department will use to seek reversal or re‑filing; coverage notes appeal intentions but leaves open whether the government will seek to remedy the appointment defect, re‑present the cases to a grand jury, or litigate statute‑of‑limitations thresholds if it tries to re‑indict [1] [14] [8]. Analysts say those procedural moves and any appellate rulings will determine whether the dismissals are effectively final or merely a pause [14] [8].
8. Bottom line for readers
As of Nov. 24, 2025, Comey and James have legally escaped the indictments because of a procedural appointment defect, not because a court resolved the underlying guilt or innocence; the government has signaled it will pursue further legal options while defense teams point to hurdles to re‑filing, especially in Comey’s case where the statute of limitations is central [3] [1] [12]. Future developments will hinge on appeals, whether prosecutors can correct the appointment problem, and how courts treat the statute‑of‑limitations question [9] [8].