Key Takeaways
- Federal judge dismisses criminal cases against James Comey and Letitia James
- Ruling cites unlawful appointment of Trump-picked prosecutor Lindsey Halligan
- Cases dismissed without prejudice, allowing DOJ to refile with different prosecutor
- Both defendants claimed prosecutions were politically motivated
A federal judge has thrown out criminal charges against former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James, ruling that the prosecutor handpicked by Donald Trump was unlawfully appointed.
US District Judge Cameron McGown Currie found that Lindsey Halligan, Trump’s former personal lawyer, “had no legal authority” to bring indictments when she was named interim US Attorney despite lacking prosecutorial experience.
Unlawful Appointment Leads to Dismissal
Judge Currie determined that Halligan’s appointment violated the Constitution’s Appointments Clause and federal law. “All actions flowing from Ms. Halligan’s defective appointment,” the judge wrote, were “unlawful exercises of executive power and are hereby set aside.”
The dismissal came “without prejudice,” giving the Justice Department opportunity to refile the cases with a different prosecutor.
Defendants Hail Victory
“I am heartened by today’s victory and grateful for the prayers and support I have received from around the country,” Letitia James said in a statement.
Her attorney, Abbe Lowell, stated James would “continue to challenge any further politically motivated charges through every lawful means available.”
Controversial Appointment Process
Trump ordered Attorney General Pam Bondi to install Halligan after her predecessor Erik Siebert declined to pursue charges against Comey or James, citing lack of credible evidence.
Shortly after her appointment, Halligan alone secured indictments when other career prosecutors refused to participate. Comey faced charges of making false statements and obstructing Congress, while James was charged with bank fraud and lying to a financial institution.
Legal Challenges to Appointment
Attorneys for both defendants argued Halligan’s appointment violated federal law limiting interim US attorney appointments to one 120-day stint. They contended repeated interim appointments bypassed Senate confirmation, allowing indefinite service.
Justice Department lawyers argued the law permits multiple interim appointments. Bondi separately installed Halligan as special attorney for both prosecutions and ratified the indictments.
The appointment challenge was among several efforts to have the cases dismissed before trial. Both defendants argued the prosecutions were “vindictive” and motivated by Trump’s animosity.
During a November 13 hearing, Judge Currie questioned why the Justice Department took additional steps if it believed Halligan’s appointment was lawful.
