Sen. Adam Schiff predicted the criminal case against former FBI Director James Comey would collapse, and a federal judge just proved him right, though not for the reasons Schiff likely imagined. The indictments against Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James were thrown out not on the merits but because the prosecutor who brought them had no legal authority to do so.
Senior U.S. District Judge Cameron McGowan Currie ruled that interim U.S. Attorney Lindsey Halligan was unlawfully installed in the Eastern District of Virginia, invalidating every action she took in office, including the indictments themselves. The decision lands as the latest in a string of federal court rulings striking down Trump administration interim prosecutor appointments across the country.
The legal fallout is immediate and serious. While both dismissals came without prejudice, meaning the Justice Department could theoretically refile, the statute of limitations may have already killed the Comey case for good. Attorney General Pam Bondi has vowed an "immediate appeal," and the White House said the rulings "will not be the final word on the matter." But for now, neither Comey nor James faces active criminal charges.
The core of Judge Currie's ruling turned on a federal statute, 28 U.S.C. § 546, that governs how interim U.S. attorneys are appointed. Under that law, the attorney general may install an interim prosecutor for up to 120 days. After that window closes, the authority to appoint shifts to the federal district court. The Washington Examiner reported that Halligan's appointment violated both that statute and the Appointments Clause of the Constitution.
The 120-day clock expired on May 21, 2025. Halligan stayed on anyway. Judge Currie found that the attorney general's authority had lapsed and that no valid appointment followed.
In her ruling, the judge wrote:
"All actions flowing from Ms. Halligan's defective appointment, including securing and signing the indictments, were unlawful exercises of executive power and are hereby set aside."
Halligan's background made the appointment a target from the start. A former White House aide and insurance lawyer, she had no prior prosecutorial experience. AP News reported that Halligan was appointed after veteran prosecutor Erik Siebert resigned under Trump administration pressure to file charges against Comey and James. Siebert's departure left the office without a Senate-confirmed U.S. attorney, and the DOJ's decision to slot in Halligan rather than seek judicial appointment or Senate confirmation created the procedural crack that brought both cases down.
Comey had already been fighting the charges on multiple fronts. His defense team asked a federal judge to toss the "86 47" seashell indictment, calling the prosecution an attack on free speech.
The Halligan ruling did not land in isolation. Federal judges have struck down similar Trump interim appointments in at least three other districts. Fox News reported that courts in California, New Jersey, and Nevada disqualified Trump-appointed U.S. attorneys, including Alina Habba, Sigal Chattah, and Bill Essayli. Each case turned on the same statutory framework: the 120-day window lapsed, and the administration kept its chosen prosecutors in place without proper authority.
The pattern raises a structural question the DOJ will have to answer on appeal. If the attorney general's interim appointment power has a hard expiration date, and the administration repeatedly blew past it, then every indictment secured by those prosecutors sits on the same unstable ground.
The situation echoes other high-profile case dismissals in the current legal environment. A Trump-appointed judge permanently dismissed the Proud Boys seditious conspiracy case on constitutional grounds, illustrating how procedural and constitutional defects can unravel even the most publicized prosecutions.
Sen. Adam Schiff, the California Democrat and former House Intelligence Committee chairman, predicted the case against Comey would be thrown out. Schiff framed the prosecution as politically motivated, a characterization the DOJ disputes. The dismissal on procedural grounds rather than on the merits means the underlying question of whether the charges had legal substance was never reached.
That distinction matters. Schiff and other Democrats will claim vindication, but the judge did not rule that the charges were baseless. She ruled that the person who brought them lacked the authority to do so. Those are different outcomes with different implications for any future prosecution.
The dismissals came without prejudice, a legal term meaning the government is not permanently barred from refiling. But "without prejudice" does not mean "easy to refile." The statute of limitations may have already closed the door on Comey's case.
Comey's lawyers argue that the false statements charge stems from congressional testimony given on September 30, 2020, more than five years ago. If the standard five-year statute of limitations applies, the clock ran out before the indictment was even handed down. National Review noted that while the dismissals give the DOJ six months under 18 U.S.C. § 3288 to potentially refile under a lawfully appointed U.S. attorney, the underlying limitations question could block any new indictment of Comey regardless.
The legal timeline had already been a source of friction. A federal judge pushed Comey's trial date to October, opening the door for a First Amendment challenge that added another layer of complexity to the prosecution.
Even if the DOJ clears the statute of limitations hurdle, it faces a separate evidentiary problem. Newsmax reported that U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly issued a temporary restraining order barring prosecutors from accessing computer files belonging to Columbia law professor Daniel Richman, a Comey associate. Those files had served as key evidence in the original case.
Judge Kollar-Kotelly found that Richman faced irreparable harm from the government's continued retention of his seized computer materials:
"Petitioner Richman has also shown that, absent an injunction, he will be irreparably harmed by the ongoing violation of his Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable seizures arising from the Government's continuing retention of the image of his computer and related materials."
Without access to the Richman communications, prosecutors lose a central pillar of their case. The combination of an expired statute of limitations, a blocked evidence trove, and an unlawfully appointed prosecutor leaves the DOJ with very little runway to revive the Comey prosecution.
The prosecution had already shown signs of strain before the dismissal. The lead prosecutor in the Comey seashell case asked to be removed as trial approached, a move that signaled internal friction within the government's legal team.
Both defendants issued public statements after the ruling. Comey cast the prosecution as both malicious and bungled.
"I am grateful that the court ended the case against me, which was a prosecution based on malevolence and incompetence."
He also struck a defiant note, telling reporters: "Trump will probably come after me again."
James, the New York attorney general who has clashed repeatedly with the Trump administration, framed the outcome as a broader validation.
"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."
Neither statement addressed the procedural nature of the dismissal. Both treated it as a ruling on the merits, which it was not.
The DOJ has two paths forward. It can appeal Judge Currie's ruling on the appointment question, which would test whether the administration's reading of 28 U.S.C. § 546 can survive appellate review. Or it can attempt to refile under a properly appointed prosecutor, assuming it can solve the statute of limitations and evidence problems first.
Bondi's promise of an "immediate appeal" suggests the administration will fight on the appointment question rather than concede the procedural defect. But even a successful appeal would only restore Halligan's authority. It would not resolve the limitations issue or lift the restraining order on the Richman evidence.
Investigators and prosecutors will also need to determine whether a Senate-confirmed U.S. attorney can be installed in the Eastern District of Virginia in time to act within the six-month refiling window, assuming that window applies. Authorities have not publicly confirmed whether any nomination is in progress.
The broader pattern of judicial rejections across multiple districts suggests the administration's approach to interim appointments faces systemic legal exposure. Courts in politically and geographically diverse jurisdictions have reached the same conclusion: the 120-day limit means what it says.
When the government's own procedural shortcuts become the reason its cases collapse, the question stops being about the defendants and starts being about whether anyone at the Justice Department is reading the statute before making the appointment.
