Was Magistrate Judge William R. ?’s ruling regarding Comey challenged on appeal or altered by a higher court?

1. What Fitzpatrick actually ordered — and what happened next

Magistrate Judge William Fitzpatrick ordered release of Comey’s grand‑jury transcripts to the defense on Nov. 17, 2025, finding prosecutorial missteps that raised concern about the grand‑jury process; that decision was immediately stayed by District Judge Michael Nachmanoff to give prosecutors time to object, so Fitzpatrick’s order did not end the case ^{[1] [4]}.

2. The ruling that changed the case on its face

Two weeks after Fitzpatrick’s order, Senior District Judge Cameron McGowan Currie dismissed the indictments against Comey and Letitia James on Nov. 24, 2025, concluding that Lindsey Halligan had been unlawfully appointed as an interim U.S. attorney and that actions flowing from that defective appointment — including the indictments — had to be set aside ^[5].

3. Did the government appeal immediately?

Senior Justice Department officials and the White House publicly vowed an immediate appeal — Attorney General Pam Bondi and the White House said they would “take all available legal action” and appeal — but multiple outlets reported that the department had not yet filed the appeal as of follow‑up reporting; federal rules give DOJ 30 days to notify the court of its intention to appeal, and outlets noted that deadline would fall around late December 2025 ^{[6] [3] [7]}.

4. What an appeal would and would not do procedurally

If DOJ files a timely appeal, the dismissal would be reviewed by the U.S. Court of Appeals (likely the 4th Circuit given the district), which could reverse or affirm Currie’s appointment ruling; meanwhile, dismissal was entered “without prejudice” by Currie, leaving prosecutors the option to seek new indictments signed by a properly appointed prosecutor if the appeals path or other procedural avenues permit refiling ^{[5] [8]}.

5. Competing legal views in coverage

Coverage shows two competing perspectives: judges and defense lawyers argued the appointment defect required wholesale unwinding of Halligan’s work; the White House and DOJ insisted Halligan was legally installed and framed Currie’s move as a “technical” or partisan ruling to be overturned on appeal ^[8]. Some outlets stressed the Fitzgerald defense argument that the indictment may be time‑barred if voided, while others emphasized DOJ’s ability to refile under different authorities or cure the defect ^{[3] [9]}.

6. Limitations of available reporting

Available sources document Fitzpatrick’s transcript order, Nachmanoff’s stay, Currie’s dismissal, and public promises to appeal, and they report that as of the last articles DOJ had not yet filed an appeal; none of the provided documents, however, reports the appellate court’s ruling reversing or affirming Currie, so there is no reporting here that Fitzpatrick’s or Currie’s rulings were ultimately altered by a higher court ^{[1] [5] [3]}.

7. Practical implications to watch next

Reporting identifies two plausible DOJ strategies moving forward: file an appeal defending Halligan’s appointment and seek to reinstate the indictments if an appellate court reverses, or decline immediate appeal and present reworked charges to a properly authorized prosecutor or grand jury — both options were explored in contemporaneous accounts and hinge on decisions DOJ takes before procedural deadlines ^{[3] [10]}.

Bottom line: Magistrate Judge Fitzpatrick’s order on disclosure was stayed, and the controlling court action was Currie’s dismissal of the indictments for an unlawful appointment; DOJ said it intended to appeal, but in the reporting provided no appeal has yet been filed and no higher court decision altering those rulings is reported ^{[1] [5] [3]}.