admin
A federal judge has thrown out the criminal cases against James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James, finding the prosecutor who brought the charges was unlawfully appointed and that the Justice Department’s move violated the 120-day limit for interim U.S. attorneys. The dramatic ruling on November 24, 2025, halted politically explosive prosecutions that had been widely perceived as weaponized by the administration, at least for now.
The uproar centers on Lindsey Halligan, who was installed as an interim U.S. attorney after Erik Siebert’s exit and quickly brought the indictments against two vocal critics of the president. Reports show Halligan was tapped by Attorney General Pam Bondi amid public pressure from President Trump, and her sudden elevation ended up being the legal Achilles’ heel for the prosecutions.
Judge Cameron McGowan Currie—herself a Clinton-era appointee—found that Section 546’s 120-day window had been exhausted and that the attorney general no longer had authority to keep installing interim prosecutors without resorting to the district court. Currie warned that allowing successive back-to-back appointments would let presidents evade the Senate confirmation process, a structural takeaway that cuts across partisan lines.
The courtroom record also revealed startling procedural sloppiness: Halligan appears to have been the lone prosecutor in grand jury sessions and key portions of the Comey grand jury transcripts were missing, undermining the integrity of the indictments. The Justice Department’s attempt to retroactively relabel Halligan as a “special attorney” to paper over the error did not pass muster with the judge.
Comey and James argued from the start that these indictments were political payback for public opposition to the president, and the judge’s ruling gives those claims real weight in the court of law. Whether one cheers Comey or dislikes Letitia James, hardworking Americans should be alarmed that raw politics made it into the machinery of criminal prosecution.
Procedurally the judge dismissed the cases without prejudice, which means the Justice Department can try to refile, but practical hurdles—like statutes of limitations and the glaring legal defects exposed in court—will make any revival an uphill battle. The Department has already signaled it will appeal, but this episode ought to be a wake-up call about how far some in power will bend rules to go after opponents.
This outcome is a partial vindication for conservatives who have warned for years about a politicized federal bureaucracy that can be turned into a weapon against dissenters. Now is not the time for complacency: Congress and state legislatures should investigate how an inexperienced, handpicked prosecutor was shoved into a sensitive role and demand reforms that protect citizens from partisan prosecutions.
President Trump’s critics celebrated in court today, but the bigger story is the rot this episode exposed—career norms tossed aside and the rule of law treated as a tool of convenience. Americans who love justice should want accountability, even when it means scrutinizing actions taken by a president we support; that is how we rebuild trust in institutions and stop the swamp from ever weaponizing the law against political foes again.
