When James B. Comey III and Letitia James walked out of a federal courtroom in Charleston on November 25, 2025, they weren’t just walking away from charges—they were walking out of a case built on sand. U.S. District Judge Cameron McGowan Currie didn’t just dismiss the indictments. She declared them void from the start, because the prosecutor who filed them—Lindsey Halligan—had no legal right to be there. The ruling sent shockwaves through Washington, not because of the charges themselves, but because of what they revealed: a politically motivated prosecution, fast-tracked by an appointee with zero prosecutorial experience, and backed by direct pressure from the White House.
The Appointment That Broke the Law
Here’s the thing: the U.S. Constitution is clear. Anyone serving as a U.S. Attorney must either be nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate—or, in rare cases, appointed temporarily under the Federal Vacancies Reform Act. Halligan, a former White House aide to President Donald J. Trump, met neither standard. She was named interim U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia on September 24, 2025, by Attorney General Pam Bondi, following a direct tweet from Trump demanding action against political opponents. No Senate hearing. No background check. No legal training in criminal prosecution. Just a press release and a swift indictment.
That indictment—filed on September 27, 2025—came just three days after Halligan’s appointment and hours before the statute of limitations expired on Comey’s alleged false statements related to his 2020 Senate testimony. The timing wasn’t coincidental. It was calculated. Career prosecutors in the Eastern District of Virginia U.S. Attorney’s Office in Alexandria had refused to sign off, according to multiple Justice Department sources. Their boss, former U.S. Attorney Erik Siebert, had been removed on September 20 after resisting the pressure. Halligan stepped in, and within 72 hours, the indictments were filed.
‘No Lawful Authority’
During the hearing, Judge Currie didn’t mince words. ‘Ms. Halligan had no lawful authority to present the indictment,’ she said. ‘Her actions were unlawful. Her indictments are ineffective.’ The ruling was a textbook application of the Appointments Clause. It wasn’t about whether Comey or James did something wrong—it was about whether the government followed the rules. And it didn’t. The judge granted the dismissal ‘without prejudice,’ meaning the Department of Justice could theoretically refile charges—if they did it right this time. But here’s the twist: because the indictment was void ab initio (from the beginning), the statute of limitations may not have been paused. That means the clock may have kept ticking. And it’s now past September 30, 2025.
Legal scholars are divided. Some argue the six-month refiling window under 18 U.S.C. § 3288 still applies. Others, like former DOJ prosecutor David Laufman, told CBS News, ‘If the prosecutor never had jurisdiction, then the indictment never existed. The statute of limitations didn’t stop—it just kept running.’ That’s a devastating legal reality for the administration.
White House Reacts—With an Appeal
Within hours of the ruling, the White House pushed back. Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt insisted Halligan was ‘extremely qualified’—a statement that raised eyebrows given her background in communications, not criminal law. Attorney General Pam Bondi, speaking in Memphis, declared the administration would appeal ‘immediately.’ The appeal will land before the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in Richmond, Virginia—a court known for its conservative leanings but also its strict adherence to constitutional procedure.
But even some Trump loyalists are uneasy. ‘This isn’t about politics,’ said former federal judge Robert J. Conrad Jr., who once served in the Eastern District. ‘It’s about whether we’re still a government of laws, or just a government of orders.’
The Bigger Picture: A Pattern of Politicization
This isn’t an isolated incident. Since Trump’s return to power, the Justice Department has seen a pattern: U.S. attorneys who resist political pressure are replaced. Career prosecutors are sidelined. Indictments are timed to exploit legal deadlines. The targeting of James B. Comey III, Letitia James, and even Adam Schiff—all prominent critics of Trump—follows a familiar script. The difference this time? The courts are watching. And they’re not looking away.
The Eastern District of Virginia is now under temporary judicial oversight. No new U.S. attorney has been nominated. The office, once known for its aggressive but impartial enforcement of federal law, is effectively frozen. Meanwhile, the public watches. And waits.
What’s Next?
The Fourth Circuit’s decision could take months. If they uphold Judge Currie’s ruling, it could set a precedent that limits future politicized prosecutions. If they reverse it, the door opens wide for the executive branch to bypass constitutional checks in pursuit of political enemies. Either way, the stakes couldn’t be higher.
And then there’s the unspoken question: Will the Department of Justice try again? Even if they could, would they? Refiling would require a new U.S. attorney—someone confirmed by the Senate, someone with prosecutorial credibility. And that’s not just a legal hurdle. It’s a political one. Who wants to be the face of a case that’s already been declared unconstitutional?
Frequently Asked Questions
Why does it matter that Lindsey Halligan had no prosecutorial experience?
Prosecutors aren’t just lawyers—they’re trained to weigh evidence, respect due process, and avoid political bias. Halligan, a former White House communications aide, had never tried a criminal case. Her rapid indictment of two high-profile figures within 72 hours of appointment raised alarms among career prosecutors who recognized the violation of professional norms—and potentially the law.
Can the Department of Justice still prosecute Comey and James?
Technically, yes—but only if they appoint a properly confirmed U.S. attorney and refile before the statute of limitations expires. But the deadline for Comey’s alleged offense passed on September 30, 2025. Legal experts argue that because the original indictment was void, the clock never stopped, making a valid re-indictment nearly impossible.
What role did President Trump play in Halligan’s appointment?
Trump publicly pressured Attorney General Pam Bondi via social media on September 15, 2025, demanding she prosecute Comey, James, and Schiff. Within days, U.S. Attorney Erik Siebert was removed for refusing to comply. Halligan, a loyal Trump aide, was installed immediately. The sequence suggests the appointment was politically driven, not based on merit or legal necessity.
How is this case different from past political prosecutions?
Unlike past controversies—like the Clinton-era Whitewater investigation or the Mueller probe—this case was initiated by a political appointee with no prosecutorial background, under direct presidential pressure, and timed to exploit a legal deadline. The dismissal wasn’t based on insufficient evidence—it was based on the prosecutor’s lack of legal authority, making it a rare constitutional rebuke.
What happens to the Eastern District of Virginia’s office now?
Without a confirmed U.S. attorney, the district is under temporary judicial control. Senior federal judges are overseeing routine operations, but no new indictments can be filed without a properly appointed prosecutor. The office, once a powerhouse in white-collar crime and national security cases, is effectively on pause until the Senate confirms a new nominee.
Could this ruling affect other cases brought by Halligan?
Yes. Any indictment filed by Halligan in the Eastern District of Virginia since September 24, 2025, is potentially vulnerable to dismissal on the same grounds. Legal teams for other defendants are already reviewing their cases. If the Fourth Circuit upholds Currie’s ruling, it could trigger a wave of appeals across multiple prosecutions.
