Federal Judge Tosses Indictments Against Comey and James Over Unlawful Appointment
In a major legal development, a federal judge has dismissed the criminal indictments against former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James. The ruling, handed down on Monday, centered on the appointment of interim U.S. Attorney Lindsey Halligan, which was deemed unlawful. Halligan, a former Trump lawyer and White House adviser, had been handpicked for the role amid rising pressure to pursue legal cases against political opponents, including Comey and James.
Judge Cameron McGowan Currie ruled that “all actions flowing from Ms. Halligan’s defective appointment,” including the indictments against Comey and James, were “unlawful exercises of executive power and are hereby set aside.” In her order, Currie emphasized that the attorney general’s attempt to install Halligan as interim U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia was invalid, effectively nullifying her authority to present these cases to a grand jury.
Also Read:Halligan’s appointment had been highly unusual. After the Trump administration removed the previous interim U.S. Attorney, Erik Siebert, Halligan was quickly installed. Defense attorneys for Comey and James argued that Halligan had already exceeded the legally allowed 120-day period for serving as an interim U.S. Attorney without Senate confirmation. This flaw, they contended, rendered her appointment unlawful and, by extension, invalidated any legal actions she took, including the indictments.
The charges against Comey included making false statements to Congress and obstructing a congressional investigation, while James faced allegations of bank fraud and falsifying statements to a financial institution. Both have pleaded not guilty. Currie noted that Halligan had acted alone in presenting the indictments to the grand jury, making her unlawful appointment particularly consequential. Had other prosecutors been involved, the situation might have been different, but in this case, her unique role was central to the decision.
Prosecutors under Halligan argued that Attorney General Pam Bondi had the authority to appoint her, pointing out that the 120-day limit was meant to act as a procedural check. The judge, however, dismissed this argument, warning that allowing such an appointment would set a dangerous precedent—effectively permitting any private citizen to secure indictments if approved after the fact by the attorney general.
While the cases were dismissed, they were done so “without prejudice,” leaving open the possibility that charges could be refiled. This ruling highlights the ongoing tension around politically motivated prosecutions and the delicate balance of legal authority in interim appointments. The Justice Department is reportedly reviewing its options for appeal, while the legal battles for Comey and James continue to unfold.
This decision marks a striking example of how procedural missteps in the appointment of prosecutors can have profound consequences, even when high-profile political figures are involved. The ripple effects of this ruling may extend beyond these cases, impacting other legal proceedings handled under similarly questionable appointments.
Read More:
0 Comments