adminA federal judge quietly tossed criminal cases against James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James not because of the merits, but because of an obscure procedural flaw: the lead prosecutor was unlawfully appointed. Judge Cameron McGowan Currie found Lindsey Halligan had no legal authority to bring the indictments, so the actions she took were voided by the court. This narrow legal ruling blew up a politically charged prosecution that many conservatives had questioned from the start.
The technical problem turned on the 120-day clock for interim U.S. attorney appointments and who can lawfully fill those posts after it runs. When the initial interim appointment clock expired, the authority to name a replacement shifted to federal judges, and Halligan’s September appointment exceeded the Attorney General’s power under the statute. Currie’s decision was legal exactitude, not mercy, and it exposed how fragile politically driven prosecutions can be when they skip established procedures.
This isn’t just a dry rules debate; it’s a snapshot of a Justice Department that’s been weaponized for political ends. Halligan — a former Trump lawyer suddenly thrust into a federal prosecutor’s role — was the linchpin of cases brought against two prominent critics of the former president, which only deepened suspicions of selective enforcement. Conservatives who want law and order should welcome a court that refuses to rubber-stamp backroom appointments designed to secure headline-grabbing indictments.
The judge dismissed the indictments without prejudice, meaning the government can theoretically try again under a lawfully appointed prosecutor, but re-filing won’t be simple. Legal experts warned the statute of limitations may complicate any attempt to re-indict Comey, and rebuilding a case after the kind of procedural missteps shown here would be an uphill climb. That uncertainty should sting the administration that rushed these cases to court and should warn anyone who thinks the ends justify the means.
Attorney General Pam Bondi signaled she will appeal and has attempted to retroactively cure the problem by calling Halligan a special attorney, but that move reads like damage control after a botched operation. The ruling highlighted not only sloppiness but a disturbing willingness to bend appointment rules when politically motivated actors demand prosecutions. Real conservatives believe in accountability, but accountability means following the law — not improvising prosecutorial authority whenever political pressure mounts.
What should be the takeaway for those who care about institutions? Courts deserve our respect when they enforce the rule of law, even when the result frustrates partisan objectives. If justice becomes a tool for retribution without regard to statutory safeguards, everyone loses — including those who cheer indictments today and could be targets tomorrow. The proper response is to insist on lawful, transparent, and impartial prosecutions, and to reject the cynical transactional politics that let this mess happen.
