What is Comey's status
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
A federal judge dismissed the criminal indictments against former FBI director James Comey on November 24, 2025, finding that the prosecutor who signed the charges, Lindsey Halligan, had been unlawfully appointed as interim U.S. attorney, and the dismissals were entered “without prejudice” — meaning the Justice Department can try again — though practical and legal obstacles complicate any re‑filing [1] [2] [3].
1. What the court decided and why
Senior U.S. District Judge Cameron McGowan Currie set aside the indictments of Comey (and New York Attorney General Letitia James) on the ground that Halligan “had no legal authority” to bring the cases because her appointment violated the statutory process for interim U.S. attorneys, a defect that tainted “all actions flowing from Ms. Halligan’s defective appointment” [1] [4] [5].
2. Immediate legal status of Comey’s case
Legally, Comey’s charges were dismissed but not declared merits‑innocent; the dismissal was without prejudice, leaving open the possibility of a new indictment, yet the court and subsequent rulings have placed practical limits on the government’s ability to reuse key evidence and to obtain a fresh charging document [2] [3] [6].
3. The Justice Department’s response and the prospects for re‑indictment
The Justice Department has appealed the dismissal and filed to revive the cases, signaling it will seek to re‑present the matters to a grand jury with properly appointed prosecutors, but multiple court rulings — including restrictions on the government’s access to communications central to the original indictment and a judge’s temporary blocking of evidence use — have materially complicated efforts to re‑indict Comey [7] [8] [6].
4. Statute of limitations and procedural obstacles that could be decisive
Court filings and reporting indicate a meaningful legal barrier: judges acknowledged the statute of limitations may now preclude a fresh prosecution of Comey for the underlying allegations, which means even if the DOJ secures a new indictment mechanism the window for charges may have closed for some counts [4] [3].
5. Questions about grand‑jury procedure and prosecutorial practice
Independent reporting raised doubts about the original grand‑jury process: prosecutors admitted at a hearing that the final indictment version in Comey’s case was not shown to the full grand jury before the foreperson signed it — a procedural irregularity that undercut the government’s presentation and fed judges’ skepticism [9].
6. Competing narratives and political stakes
Supporters of Comey frame the rulings as vindication of legal due process and a rebuke of what they call politically motivated prosecutions, while the Justice Department emphasizes its intent to pursue accountability and disputes the consequences of personnel appointments; critics of the administration argue the Halligan appointment reflected political pressure to manufacture charges against Trump’s opponents, an allegation underscored in court papers and reporting [10] [2] [11].
7. What this does and does not resolve
The dismissal resolves the immediate criminal jeopardy created by those specific indictments — for now — but it does not amount to an adjudication on the factual merits of the allegations against Comey, nor does it foreclose further legal action by the DOJ if it can clear the appointment and evidence hurdles; multiple outlets report the appeals and potential re‑presentation are active matters that could change the landscape [7] [12] [3].
8. Limits of available reporting
Available reporting documents the dismissal, appeals filings and procedural rulings, but public sources do not provide a definitive account of the DOJ’s internal assessment of statute‑of‑limitations timing or any sealed grand‑jury material, so conclusions about the ultimate feasibility of re‑indicting Comey rest on incomplete public records [6] [8].