A federal judge tossed indictments against Letitia James and James Comey on technical grounds tied to an interim U.S. attorney’s appointment, giving them a temporary reprieve while leaving open the possibility of new charges.
The court’s move centered on who had the authority to place an interim U.S. attorney in office, not on whether the allegations themselves have merit. U.S. District Judge Cameron McGowan Currie found that the appointment of Lindsey Halligan was not made by the district court after the interim term expired, a defect that undercut the indictments. The dismissal was entered without prejudice, which means prosecutors can, and likely will, try again. That narrow legal finding matters, but it does not settle the substantive accusations against either person.
The Justice Department’s filings accuse James of mortgage fraud, alleging she falsified mortgage applications to secure favorable loan terms for multiple properties she owns. The agency claims Comey lied to Congress and obstructed a congressional proceeding by denying he approved leaks to the press about the 2016 investigation into President Donald Trump’s campaign. Those are serious accusations that touch on public trust and the integrity of legal processes, and they are why the cases attracted intense attention from both sides of the aisle.
Judge Currie’s remedy focused on the mechanics of federal appointment power: once an interim U.S. attorney’s statutory term expires, the district court may step in to appoint a successor unless the statute and sequence were correctly followed. In this instance, Halligan was appointed by Attorney General Pam Bondi rather than the court, and Currie concluded that the defect required dismissal. That legal wrinkle is narrow but decisive, and it has shuffled the immediate fate of two high-profile defendants without resolving the underlying claims.
Because the dismissals were without prejudice, the Justice Department retains options. White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters that Halligan was “legally appointed” and that Judge Currie “is clearly trying to shield Letitia James and James Comey from receiving accountability.” She added that the Justice Department “will be appealing very soon.” Those statements frame the political stakes and signal that this fight is far from over.
There are practical hurdles for prosecutors if they try to refile. In Comey’s case the timing is tight: his initial charge was brought near the end of a five-year statute of limitations that expired in September, and his lawyers have argued that a new indictment cannot be filed now that the statutory window has closed. At the same time, a federal statute does allow indictments dismissed after the statute of limitations ends to be refiled within a six-month window under certain circumstances, which complicates any final prediction about Comey’s exposure.
Some questions remain as to whether the case against Comey can be refiled. He was first charged near the end of a five-year statute of limitations that expired in September, and Comey’s attorney has argued that a new indictment can’t be filed because that window is now closed.
But a federal statute allows for indictments dismissed after the statute of limitations ends to be refiled within a six-month window.
The allegations against James, that she improperly received favorable loan terms on a Virginia home purchase, can more clearly be refiled.
Still, both Comey and James declared a win and indicated they’re prepared to continue to proclaim their innocence.
The James matter appears easier for prosecutors to revisit because the alleged mortgage misrepresentations involve a Virginia home purchase and related loan paperwork, which generally have clearer avenues for recharging if the procedural defect is fixed. For Comey, timing and grand jury technicalities create a murkier path back to court, especially if defense counsel press the statute of limitations issue aggressively. Either way, dismissal without prejudice leaves open a replay that will demand careful legal choreography from prosecutors.
The original Comey indictment faced its own procedural turbulence after Department lawyers at one point admitted the grand jury hadn’t seen the full indictment before approving prosecution, then retracted that admission and insisted the grand jury had seen the complete document. That sequence raised questions about internal handling and attention to detail in a sensitive, high-profile matter. Questions about process, whether in appointing an interim attorney or managing grand jury materials, have become the hinge on which these cases turned.
From a political angle, the episode fuels two competing narratives: one that the justice system is being twisted to protect allies and another that prosecutorial teams must follow strict procedural rules even when the stakes are high. Supporters of accountability will argue the allegations deserve a full, untainted adjudication, while critics will say technical errors reveal overreach or sloppiness that should bar prosecution. Either position underscores how legal formality can be as consequential as the facts themselves.
What happens next is likely to be procedural and public at once: appeals or refilings, motions to clarify appointment authority, and strategic decisions about timing given statute of limitations constraints. For now, both defendants walk away from this round with a procedural victory, but the door remains open for the Justice Department to pursue the matters again if it can correct the appointment defect and satisfy timing rules. The law provided the judge a path to dismiss; the political and legal fight over whether to refile will determine whether it becomes the last word.
