Judge Dismisses Indictments Against Comey and James: What’s Next?

A federal judge has dismissed criminal cases against former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James, leaving the government with the challenging task of appealing the decision. The dismissals were based on technical grounds, without addressing the actual merits of the cases. U.S. District Judge Cameron McGowan Currie determined that the appointment of the acting U.S. attorney who initiated the indictments was improper.

The indictments stemmed from accusations that Comey made false statements to Congress and obstructed a congressional proceeding. James faced a mortgage fraud indictment. Both were indicted in the Eastern District of Virginia by acting U.S. attorney Lindsey Halligan, who was appointed after the resignation of Erik Siebert on September 19, 2023. Siebert reportedly hesitated to bring charges against the two high-profile figures.

Following the indictments, former President Donald Trump expressed his views on social media, labeling Comey and James as “guilty as hell” and endorsing Halligan’s legal expertise. He called for justice to be swiftly served. Halligan was authorized to step into the role of interim U.S. attorney on September 22, 2023, with Comey’s indictment occurring shortly after on September 25, 2023, followed by James’s on October 9, 2023.

Judge Currie ruled this week that Halligan’s appointment was invalid. The judge stated, “All actions flowing from Ms. Halligan’s defective appointment, including securing and signing Mr. Comey’s indictment, were unlawful exercises of executive power and are hereby set aside.” A similar statement was included in the dismissal of James’s case.

Legal experts have weighed in on the dismissals. Tamara Lave, a law professor at the University of Miami, noted that while there were various reasons to dismiss the cases, the judge opted for the clearest path by focusing on Halligan’s authority. The judge avoided the politically sensitive issue of vindictive prosecution, opting instead to address the procedural missteps.

White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt asserted that Halligan’s appointment was legitimate. She claimed the judge’s ruling was an effort to protect Comey and James from accountability, emphasizing that the Department of Justice would appeal the decision. Attorney General Pam Bondi defended Halligan’s appointment, stating that she was designated as “a special U.S. attorney” and expressing confidence in a successful appeal.

Under current law, the attorney general can appoint an acting U.S. attorney for a maximum of 120 days in the event of a vacancy. If this period elapses without Senate confirmation, the district court assumes responsibility for selecting an acting prosecutor. Although the district court can allow a prosecutor appointed by the attorney general to continue beyond the 120-day window, Judge Currie’s ruling indicates that Halligan’s appointment was beyond the permissible timeline after Siebert’s resignation.

The question now is whether the government will succeed in its appeal. Attorney Thomas Berry of the Cato Institute expressed uncertainty but indicated that the challengers might have the upper hand. He noted that the appellate court could choose not to hear the government’s case, and if it does, there is a strong likelihood that the dismissals will be upheld.

Lave echoed this sentiment, suggesting that the evidence of potential vindictive prosecution might influence the appellate court’s decision. The dismissals were issued without prejudice, allowing for the possibility of re-filing charges. However, the statute of limitations has already expired for the charges against Comey. Should Halligan’s appointment be invalidated during the appeals process, the government would need to identify a valid successor willing to pursue fresh charges against James.

The unfolding legal battle continues to draw attention, particularly given the high-profile nature of the individuals involved. As the government prepares to challenge the dismissals, the implications for both Comey and James remain uncertain.