The criminal cases against former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James are currently over, but what comes next largely depends on whether the Trump administration can overcome legal challenges to the authority of temporary prosecutors it has appointed in jurisdictions across the country.
The sharply worded ruling that tossed both indictments and removed the prosecutor who brought them on Monday has raised a series of new legal and political uncertainties for the Department of Justice as it navigates one of the most volatile disputes for the justice system since President Donald Trump returned to office this year.
U.S. District Judge Cameron Currie determined that Lindsey Halligan, the acting head of the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Virginia, was illegally installed in September when Attorney General Pam Bondi placed her in the role. Currie found that Halligan was the only prosecutor who signed off on the charges against Comey and James, which meant the indictments had to be vacated in their entirety.
The decision halted two prosecutions that had already generated intense scrutiny. Comey had been charged with lying to Congress in 2020 during testimony about media leaks tied to the FBI’s Russia inquiry. James faced separate mortgage fraud charges, which were brought two weeks later. Both argued that Halligan, a former personal lawyer to Trump, pursued them to satisfy the president’s personal grievances.
Judges in both cases were examining whether the prosecutions were retaliatory when Currie cut them off at the threshold, focusing not on the motives behind the charges but on the legality of the person who brought them.
Here is what Currie’s decision leaves unresolved, and what comes next.
Will the Justice Department re-indict Comey or James?
The DOJ has not announced whether it intends to revive the criminal cases, nor has it said who would lead any renewed effort. At a press conference in Memphis on Monday, Bondi said the department planned to immediately appeal Currie’s ruling and pursue “all available legal action,” but she declined to elaborate.
The U.S. Court of Appeals would hear any appeal for the 4th Circuit, where the timeline for resolution is uncertain. If the department chooses to re-indict either defendant at a later point, it will need someone with undisputed authority to oversee the charging decisions.
James’s attorney, Abbe Lowell, welcomed the dismissal but said his team is preparing to fight again. He warned that any attempts to revive the case will be challenged as politically motivated.
Comey, in a video to supporters released after the ruling, said he expects further attempts to charge him. He said he remains “not afraid” and called for an independent federal judiciary.
Does the statute of limitations doom the Comey case?
Timing is one of the biggest questions left open. Halligan indicted Comey just three days before the statute of limitations expired on Sept. 30. Currie suggested in a footnote that because the indictment was invalid from its inception, it may not have triggered the six-month grace period that normally allows prosecutors to refile charges after the limitations period has expired.
“Generally, the return of an indictment tolls the statute of limitations on charges contained in the indictment,” Currie wrote. “An invalid indictment, however, cannot serve to block the door of limitations as it swings closed.”
Legal experts disagree on how much weight that footnote carries. Ed Whelan of the Ethics and Public Policy Center said the governing statute, 18 U.S.C. 3288, is clear that prosecutors can refile within six months when an indictment is dismissed “for any reason.”
This footnote that is getting so much attention from some folks strikes me as virtually irrelevant. Apart from general principles of tolling, 18 USC 3288 provides that when an indictment is dismissed after the statute of limitations has expired, a new indictment is timely if it… https://t.co/MSQ0jgdEy3
— Ed Whelan (@EdWhelanEPPC) November 25, 2025
He said the footnote is unlikely to control the outcome but noted that prosecutors may need to litigate an exception embedded in the statute’s text.
Was this the least damaging outcome for the DOJ?
Currie’s decision avoided a series of possibly more damaging findings for the administration. Judges in both cases were actively examining claims that Trump ordered retaliatory prosecutions against two of his highest-profile critics. A ruling on vindictive prosecution could have required detailed accounts of behind-the-scenes tactics by Trump and his advisers.
Several judges were also questioning Halligan’s work before the grand jury, including revelations that she had not personally shown jurors the final version of the Comey indictment. A ruling voiding the indictment on those grounds would have raised even deeper concerns about her experience and the office’s internal processes.
Currie instead issued a ruling that sidestepped those disputes and centered entirely on the legality of Halligan’s appointment, an issue that has now fractured multiple federal courts and set up a broader battle over how the administration fills interim U.S. attorney posts.
The White House dismissed the ruling as a technicality. Press secretary Karoline Leavitt said Trump viewed the decision as “more of the same” and called Currie a partisan.
What happens to Comey and James’s selective prosecution claims?
Currie’s ruling for now ends both cases without addressing whether the charges were brought to punish Trump’s critics. U.S. District Judge Michael Nachmanoff, who was handling the Comey case before it was dismissed, pressed the DOJ last week on the evidence supporting the indictment and whether the case had been driven by presidential pressure.
Comey’s lawyers sought a quick ruling on that issue so it could be resolved alongside the appointment dispute. That is now unlikely to happen unless prosecutors bring a new case.
If the DOJ attempts to reindict either defendant, the question of vindictive prosecution will resurface.
What happens to Halligan for now?
Bondi said Monday that Halligan will remain in the Eastern District as a “special” U.S. attorney and will continue appearing in court. The DOJ has argued that this designation insulates the rest of the office’s work from being jeopardized if the appeals court upholds Currie’s ruling.
Halligan’s status has created immediate confusion inside the office. According to reporting from MSNOW, citing two people familiar with internal Eastern District of Virginia operations, prosecutors were instructed after the ruling to sign court filings under the name of Halligan’s first assistant. Whelan said this approach is permissible during a contested appointment, provided that someone with lawful authority signs off.
But there is another complication, according to a post on X by Whelan: Trump nominated Halligan as the permanent U.S. attorney. Whelan said that the nomination makes her ineligible to serve as acting head under the Vacancies Reform Act because she has not met the minimum required time as first assistant. He said an earlier Office of Legal Counsel opinion supports that view.
Despite the uncertainty, Halligan’s name remained on the office’s website this week, and she continued appearing on filings in ongoing matters.
What about other criminal cases brought during disputed appointments in other states?
The Halligan ruling is part of a larger nationwide fight over the administration’s use of interim and acting U.S. attorneys. Four judges across Virginia, New Jersey, California, and Nevada have reached similar conclusions that the administration exceeded its authority after the 120-day statutory window for interim appointments expired.
One federal judge in Pennsylvania, who in August reviewed challenges to acting U.S. Attorney Alina Habba’s authority to lead the U.S. Attorney’s Office in New Jersey, suggested in his ruling that prosecutions supervised by an unlawfully appointed leader could be tainted, even when the underlying charges might otherwise be sound. That ruling has led defense attorneys in multiple districts to argue that any case touched by a disputed appointee is subject to scrutiny.
John Day, president of the American College of Trial Lawyers, told the Washington Examiner the 3rd Circuit’s review of the Habba case “needs to move quickly” because the district court’s ruling now affects charging decisions, grand jury proceedings, and trials in several states. He said appellate courts must act promptly to prevent “a period of real uncertainty” in which defendants may argue they were prosecuted under an invalid chain of authority.
FBI PLANNING INTERVIEWS WITH DEMOCRATIC LAWMAKERS WHO URGED MILITARY TO REFUSE ‘ILLEGAL ORDERS’
Where this leaves the Justice Department
Bondi has continued to defend Halligan, saying she is “an excellent U.S. attorney” and criticizing other officials for resisting her presence.
The larger question now sits with the 4th Circuit and, eventually, perhaps the Supreme Court. Until then, the political and legal fight over who is allowed to bring charges may overshadow whatever decision the DOJ makes about whether to revive the cases against Comey and James.
