On November 24, 2025, U.S. District Judge Cameron Currie dismissed the criminal indictments against former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James. The dismissal was based on the finding that Lindsey Halligan, the prosecutor appointed by former President Donald Trump, was not lawfully appointed, which invalidated her authority to present the case to a grand jury.

Judge Currie determined that Halligan, who had previously served as a White House aide and lacked prosecutorial experience, acted alone in conducting the grand jury proceedings and securing the indictments. Both Comey and James had previously sought to dismiss the charges, arguing that they were the result of a selective and vindictive prosecution. The indictments were dismissed 'without prejudice,' allowing for the possibility of re-filing in the future.

Comey faced charges related to making false statements to Congress and obstructing a congressional investigation, while James was indicted on charges of bank fraud and making false statements to a financial institution. Both individuals have pleaded not guilty to the charges.

The ruling raises broader questions about the legitimacy of other prosecutions initiated under similar circumstances, as Halligan was the sole prosecutor to present the cases against Comey and James to the grand jury, despite recommendations from other prosecutors in her office against pursuing charges due to insufficient evidence. The Justice Department had argued that Halligan's appointment was valid due to a vacancy created by the departure of her predecessor, Erik Siebert, who had resisted pressure to prosecute Comey and James.

This dismissal underscores ongoing tensions within the U.S. legal system regarding the intersection of political influence and prosecutorial authority. Legal analysts note that the dismissal, while a procedural victory for Comey and James, does not preclude the possibility of future legal challenges if the case is refiled by a new U.S. Attorney, as Halligan's appointment has been deemed invalid. The implications of this ruling extend to other jurisdictions, where similar disqualifications have occurred, raising concerns about the equitable application of the law and the integrity of the judicial process.