Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
Was the case dismissed on Letitia James and James Comey based on an illegal U S Attorney, or the cases not strongly enough because 3 other US Attorneys refused to prosecute?
Executive summary
A federal judge, U.S. District Judge Cameron McGowan Currie, dismissed the criminal indictments against James Comey and Letitia James because the prosecutor who brought the cases — Lindsey Halligan — was found to have been unlawfully appointed as interim U.S. attorney; the rulings were dismissal “without prejudice,” meaning the government could potentially try again (and the Comey indictment may face a separate statute‑of‑limitations problem) [1] [2] [3]. Multiple outlets report that Halligan was installed after career prosecutors declined or were pushed out amid pressure from the White House, and that prior U.S. attorneys elsewhere similarly have been found unlawfully appointed — but the core dismissal here rests on the illegal appointment finding, not formally on a refusal to prosecute by three other U.S. attorneys in these specific rulings [4] [5] [6].
1. The judge’s stated legal reason: an unlawful appointment, not prosecutorial discretion
Judge Currie’s written orders declared that Attorney General Pam Bondi’s attempt to install Lindsey Halligan as interim U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia was invalid, and that “all actions flowing from Ms. Halligan’s defective appointment” were unlawful and had to be set aside — which is the explicit legal basis for dismissing both indictments [1] [2] [3].
2. What “without prejudice” means here and a looming statute‑of‑limitations question
Although Currie dismissed the cases, she did so “without prejudice,” meaning the Justice Department could seek new indictments under a properly appointed U.S. attorney. Reporting notes, however, that the five‑year statute of limitations in Comey’s case expired Sept. 30, 2025, which could make refiling legally difficult even though the orders themselves did not permanently bar future prosecution [1] [7].
3. Why Halligan was appointed and how that connects to career prosecutors
Multiple reports describe a sequence in which then‑interim U.S. Attorney Erik Siebert resigned after pressure from the administration, after which Bondi named Halligan — a former White House aide with no prosecutorial experience — amid public urgings from President Trump to bring charges against perceived political opponents [6] [8] [9]. Comey’s and James’s lawyers had argued that once the 120‑day interim window closed, federal judges — not the attorney general — have exclusive authority to fill a vacancy, a statutory argument that formed part of the challenge to Halligan’s appointment [10] [8].
4. The “three other U.S. attorneys refused to prosecute” claim — what reporting shows and what it does not
Available reporting cites career prosecutors who declined or hesitated to bring charges and describes pressure from the White House to find a prosecutor willing to act. For example, outlets report that Halligan was brought in “after career prosecutors refused” or after an interim U.S. attorney was forced out under pressure [1] [9] [5]. However, the specific claim that “three other U.S. Attorneys refused to prosecute” in these particular matters is not detailed in the provided articles; available sources do not enumerate or confirm exactly three separate U.S. attorneys declining to prosecute [1] [6] [5].
5. Competing framings in the press: illegal act versus mere paperwork error
Justice Department lawyers argued the defect was, at most, a paperwork error and urged against dismissing indictments on that basis, while Judge Currie and several news outlets framed the ruling as a rebuke of political meddling to substitute loyalists into U.S. attorney posts [11] [4] [5]. Coverage ranges from characterizing Halligan as an inexperienced political loyalist to noting government defenses that the statute and subsequent moves allowed the appointment — illustrating a clear split between the administration’s posture and the judge’s statutory reading [3] [2].
6. Broader legal and political context and likely next steps
News outlets note this is the latest in a string of rulings questioning unconventional appointments during the administration and that the DOJ is likely to appeal; the orders themselves do not resolve claims about the substance of the alleged crimes or assertions of vindictive prosecution, which remain pending in other motions or potential future proceedings [4] [5] [2]. The political stakes are explicit in coverage: defense teams portray the dismissals as vindication against weaponized prosecutions, while the White House says the cases are not over and may be refiled [3] [12].
7. Bottom line for your original question
The dismissals were grounded in a judicial finding that the prosecutor was unlawfully appointed — that is the legal mechanism the judge used to throw out the indictments — and reporting also documents that career prosecutors had resisted or left under pressure before Halligan’s appointment. But the specific formulation that “three other U.S. Attorneys refused to prosecute” is not corroborated in the provided sources; the unanimous, cited facts in the reporting center on the illegal appointment ruling as the proximate reason for dismissal [3] [5] [6].