Judge dismisses charges against two of #Trump’s political enemies

A US federal judge has dismissed indictments against former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James.

“The Attorney General’s attempt to appoint Ms. Halligan as Acting United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia was invalid,” Judge Cameron McGowan Currie wrote in his Monday order.

According to Currie, “all actions arising from Ms. Halligan’s defective appointment,” including the indictments against Comey and James “constituted unlawful exercises of executive power and are hereby quashed.”

The judge dismissed the cases “without prejudice,” leaving open the possibility that the cases against Comey and James could be brought again alleging the same conduct. But McGowan Currie appeared to acknowledge in his ruling that for Comey, such a move may not be possible since the statute of limitations on his charges has now passed.

CNN has contacted the Justice Department for comment.

James released a statement after charges against her were dropped.

“I am heartened by today’s victory and grateful for the prayers and support I have received from across the country,” she said.

“I remain undaunted in the face of these baseless accusations and continue to fight for New Yorkers every day.”

Why Halligan was appointed illegally

Halligan, a former White House adviser, was tapped for the job after the Trump administration forced out the previous acting U.S. attorney, amid growing pressure to bring charges against Comey and James.

After determining that Halligan’s nomination was invalid, the judge pointed to Trump’s classified documents case to explain why dismissing the indictments was the appropriate remedy.

In that case, Judge Aileen Cannon dismissed the charges against Trump after finding that special counsel Jack Smith was illegally appointed, in part because he, too, had not been confirmed by the Senate. Trump had pleaded not guilty to taking classified documents from the White House and resisting government attempts to recover those documents.

In the cases against Comey — which Halligan brought before a grand jury just days after his nomination — and James, defense attorneys argued that the 120-day period that an acting U.S. attorney is allowed to serve before Senate confirmation or district judge approval had already expired when Halligan took office. This, they said, meant that Halligan’s appointment was illegal.

Currie agreed, writing that accepting the administration’s position would give Trump and other officials the power to “indefinitely evade the Senate confirmation process by stacking successive 120-day nominations.”

“The 120-day deadline began to operate with Mr. Siebert’s appointment on January 21, 2025,” she wrote, referring to Erik Siebert who served as Acting U.S. Attorney in the Eastern District of Virginia until his expulsion in September.

“When that deadline expired on May 21, 2025, the Attorney General’s appointing authority also expired,” Currie wrote, adding that “Attorney General Pam Bondi’s attempt to install ‘Halligan’ was invalid and Ms. Halligan had unlawfully held that position since September 22, 2025.”

Currie wrote that the illegal appointment should “invalidate” Halligan’s actions – including the presentation of these two indictments before grand juries.

Prosecutors working under Halligan have previously argued that Bondi had full authority to appoint whoever she wanted to the position if they were qualified, and that the 120-day period served as a sort of vetting system for appointed acting U.S. attorneys.

“The implications of a contrary conclusion are extraordinary,” Currie wrote of Halligan’s nomination. “It would mean that the government could send any private citizen – lawyer or not – into the grand jury room to obtain an indictment, provided the attorney general gives approval after the fact. This cannot be the law.”

The cases against Comey and James

Prosecutors say Comey passed information to reporters in 2017 through his then-lawyer and later made false statements during his congressional testimony when asked about an information leak.

He was charged in September with lying and obstructing Congress during his testimony in late 2020 and has pleaded not guilty.

Separately, James was indicted in October for making false statements to a financial institution and bank fraud, with prosecutors alleging she falsely claimed a property as a second home in order to receive a better interest rate. She also pleaded not guilty to the charges.

Lawyers for Comey and James have both separately argued that their cases were brought at the behest of the Trump administration because of the president’s personal animosity toward them.

Comey has been a consistent critic of Trump and was fired by the president in the first months of his first term following the director’s handling of the investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election.

James is also a longtime critic of Trump and has filed a civil suit against Trump for alleged inflation of Trump property values. While a state judge found Trump liable and ordered him to pay more than $US350 million ($541.4 million) in the case, a New York appeals court overturned the judgment as “excessive.”

Trump: “They are all guilty”

As they fight the charges, Comey and James highlighted myriad comments from Trump calling for both individuals to be prosecuted and, in James’ case, accused the government of “turning the Justice Department into the president’s personal agents of vengeance.”

Their lawyers pointed to one of Trump’s posts on Truth Social, which was aimed at Bondi and dated from September.

“Pam: I have reviewed over 30 statements and messages saying that essentially it is the same old story as last time, all talk, no action. Nothing is being done. What about Comey, Adam “Shifty” Schiff, Leticia??? They are all guilty as hell, but nothing will be done,” Trump wrote in September, referring to Comey, James and Sen. Adam Schiff of California.

The Justice Department, however, argued that the president’s social media posts did not order Bondi to act, but simply said he believed these people should be prosecuted because they are guilty.

What is the role of Judge Cameron McGowan Currie?

Currie, appointed by former President Bill Clinton, usually sits in South Carolina. She was appointed to handle Halligan’s case because other judges in the Eastern District of Virginia play a role in ensuring there is a top prosecutor in their district.

When the chief judge of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals assigned Currie to handle the challenges against Halligan, he said the decision was made “in the interest of maintaining public confidence in the impartial administration of justice.”

In May, federal judges in the Eastern District of Virginia voted unanimously to keep in office Halligan’s predecessor, Siebert, whose 120-day term as acting U.S. attorney was coming to an end.

Among the judges who made the decision were U.S. District Judge Michael Nachmanoff, who was later assigned Comey’s case, and Jamar Walker, who was later assigned to oversee James’ case.

Currie, who began presiding over cases in the Palmetto State in 1994, stopped serving as a full-time judge in 2013.