Judge Dismisses DOJ Case
Against Letitia James

A federal judge has dismissed the Justice Department’s case against New York Attorney General Letitia James, ruling that the prosecutor who brought the charges was never legally authorized to do so. The decision abruptly halts one of the most high-profile cases initiated under President Donald Trump’s new DOJ leadership and raises serious questions about the administration’s attempts to pursue criminal action against political critics.

U.S. District Judge Cameron Currie issued the ruling Monday, determining that acting U.S. Attorney Lindsey Halligan had been serving unlawfully since late September. Currie found that Trump and Attorney General Pam Bondi bypassed federal vacancy requirements when placing Halligan in charge of the Eastern District of Virginia, rendering all actions taken under her authority invalid.

Currie’s order concluded that Halligan’s appointment violated federal law and that any prosecution she initiated—including the cases targeting James and former FBI Director James Comey—must therefore be nullified. The dismissals wipe out the government’s filings, though the ruling leaves open the possibility that charges against James could technically be refiled by a properly appointed prosecutor.

For Comey, however, the decision effectively ends the matter entirely. The statute of limitations on the allegations against him expired in September, making it impossible for the DOJ to revive the case.

A Major Setback for Trump’s Retaliatory Prosecutions

The dismissed cases were among the first brought by the Trump-led DOJ against figures the former president has long treated as political adversaries. James has been a frequent target of Trump’s ire since her office won a multimillion-dollar civil judgment against the Trump Organization in 2024. Comey, who oversaw the FBI during the 2016 Russia inquiry, has also been routinely vilified by Trump for years.

The DOJ had accused James of bank-related offenses tied to a home purchase in Virginia, charges she firmly denied. Both James and Comey argued in pre-trial motions that the prosecutions were politically driven, citing the former president’s repeated public threats and his desire for retribution.

Currie did not rule on those claims, but his findings underscored deeper dysfunction within the DOJ’s approach to these cases. Court records showed that Halligan, who had no prosecutorial background prior to joining Trump’s legal orbit, made major procedural errors when seeking indictments—so significant, in fact, that the department later admitted Comey’s grand jury had never even reviewed the final version of the charges brought against him.

James Responds: “I Remain Fearless”

Attorney General James issued a brief but resolute statement following the court’s decision:

"I am heartened by today’s victory and grateful for the prayers and support I have received from around the country. I remain fearless in the face of these baseless charges as I continue fighting for New Yorkers every single day."

The ruling marks the fourth time a Trump-installed acting U.S. attorney has been found to be serving improperly, further amplifying concerns about the administration’s attempts to sidestep established appointment laws to launch criminal cases against perceived opponents.

With this dismissal, the government’s attempt to prosecute James ends—at least for now—on legal grounds entirely unrelated to the underlying allegations. It also represents a significant judicial pushback against efforts to weaponize federal law enforcement for political aims, leaving the future of similar cases in serious doubt.