A major legal and political shockwave hit Washington this week as a federal judge dismissed all criminal charges against former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James. The ruling, centered on a fundamental flaw in the appointment of the lead prosecutor, has raised serious questions about the legality, integrity, and motivation behind some of the most politically explosive cases in recent years.
The decision came from U.S. District Judge Cameron McGowan Currie, who concluded that prosecutor Lindsey Halligan—the key figure who led the indictments—was unlawfully appointed. According to federal law, interim U.S. Attorneys appointed by the Attorney General can only serve for a strict 120-day period. After that window closes, the power to appoint passes to the relevant district court. Judge Currie ruled that Halligan’s appointment “had expired long before the indictments were issued,” rendering every action she took in that role legally invalid.
This procedural defect became the cornerstone of the court’s decision. Because Halligan was the sole prosecutor signing and presenting the charges, her lack of legal authority meant the indictments themselves could not stand. Judge Currie stated that all actions stemming from her “defective appointment” were unauthorized and must therefore be set aside in accordance with constitutional protections.
The judge dismissed the cases without prejudice, leaving the door technically open for the Department of Justice to refile charges under a properly appointed prosecutor. However, significant legal barriers remain. In Comey’s case, his defense team has already argued that the statute of limitations has run out—making any future prosecution nearly impossible. Meanwhile, Letitia James’ team continues to insist the original charges were politically driven and unsupported by credible evidence.
The DOJ, now under the leadership of Attorney General Pam Bondi, announced that it intends to appeal the ruling. This sets up yet another legal battle that could determine not only the future of these cases but also how federal prosecutors may be appointed and supervised going forward.
Public reactions have been swift and sharply divided. James Comey released a video expressing gratitude and warning that the Justice Department must never be weaponized against political rivals. Letitia James also welcomed the ruling, calling it a victory for the rule of law and a repudiation of what she described as “baseless political retaliation.”
Beyond the immediate political drama, the ruling exposes broader institutional concerns. It highlights systemic weaknesses in the appointment process for interim U.S. Attorneys and raises alarms about how procedural loopholes may be exploited. It also underscores the potential consequences when high-profile prosecutions are rushed or influenced by political pressures.
As the appeal moves forward, observers across the political spectrum will be watching closely. The outcome could reshape public trust in federal prosecutions—and set a significant precedent for future political and legal confrontations in the United States.
Watch video below :
