In a significant legal development, a federal judge has thrown out criminal charges against two prominent critics of former President Donald Trump - former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James. The dismissal came on Monday, November 24, 2025, marking a temporary victory for both officials who had been targeted by the Trump-era Justice Department.
The Legal Basis for Dismissal
Judge Cameron McGowan Currie, a Clinton appointee who typically presides in South Carolina, ruled that the cases were brought forward by an unlawfully appointed prosecutor. Lindsey Halligan, who served as interim U.S. attorney in eastern Virginia, was appointed by Attorney General Pam Bondi without going through the customary confirmation process.
The judge determined that only the district court had the authority to appoint a temporary U.S. attorney after the previous prosecutor, Erik Siebert, resigned. Siebert had been forced out of his position after resisting pressure to indict Comey and James due to insufficient evidence.
What Charges Were Filed?
James Comey faced serious allegations including making false statements and obstruction related to testimony he gave during a 2020 congressional hearing. This testimony concerned the FBI's investigation into Trump's connections with Russia during the 2016 presidential campaign.
Letitia James, a Democrat and longtime legal adversary of Trump, was indicted separately approximately two weeks later for alleged mortgage fraud. This indictment came after she had initiated her own civil fraud case against the former president. Both officials had entered not guilty pleas against all charges brought against them.
Next Steps for Justice Department
Attorney General Pam Bondi has announced that the Justice Department plans to pursue all available legal action, including filing an immediate appeal against the court's decision. The appeal would proceed to a Richmond-based appeals court, with potential for further appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court if necessary.
Alternatively, the Justice Department could attempt to bring new charges against both officials since Judge Currie dismissed the cases without prejudice. This legal terminology means the cases can be refiled, though significant challenges remain.
Legal experts highlight particular complications for the Comey case. The five-year statute of limitations for charging him with making false statements to Congress expired shortly after his initial indictment in September. This timing creates substantial hurdles for any renewed prosecution attempt.
Broader Implications and Legal Context
This case represents part of a broader pattern where the Trump administration has utilized unusual methods to maintain its preferred prosecutors in position. The specific strategy involves the attorney general assigning new titles to interim selections, a approach that has faced legal challenges in multiple jurisdictions including Los Angeles, Nevada, New Jersey, and New York.
In New Jersey, a federal judge similarly ruled that the appointment of Alina Habba, another former Trump personal lawyer, was unlawful. Federal appeals courts are currently reviewing these decisions, with judges in Nevada and Los Angeles issuing comparable rulings.
Jacqueline Kelly, a former federal prosecutor in Manhattan, noted that while the dismissal without prejudice keeps the door open for refiling cases, how open that door remains is uncertain, especially in James Comey's situation. The outcome contrasts with what might have occurred had the cases been dismissed with prejudice, which would have provided a more definitive conclusion.
Legal analysts observe that Comey and James achieved their victory through particularly narrow and technical legal grounds, leaving other substantive challenges unresolved. These included arguments that they were targeted vindictively by the Trump administration's Justice Department - claims that might have resulted in more permanent dismissals with prejudice.
