admin
A federal judge this week threw out the criminal cases against former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James, not on the merits, but because the prosecutor who brought the charges was found to have been unlawfully appointed. The ruling centered on Lindsey Halligan’s interim appointment, and the judge concluded that everything flowing from that defective appointment—including the indictments—had to be set aside.
U.S. District Judge Cameron McGowan Currie, a Clinton nominee, laid out the legal basis for the dismissal, saying the Justice Department’s maneuvering ran afoul of federal vacancy statutes and the Appointments Clause. Currie declined to bar re-filing, dismissing the indictments without prejudice, but made clear the appointment process was the fatal legal flaw.
Lindsey Halligan had been installed after the previous interim U.S. attorney balked at proceeding, and Halligan’s rapid elevation from former Trump lawyer and White House aide to top prosecutor in the Eastern District of Virginia was always a red flag. Multiple outlets reported she had little or no prior prosecutorial experience and that her elevation followed heavy political pressure—circumstances conservatives should find concerning when they are used to pursue high-profile political targets.
The court’s procedural ruling leaves the Justice Department the option to appeal and to try again under a properly appointed prosecutor, but practical obstacles remain: Comey’s indictment came up against a looming statute of limitations, and the political taint on these prosecutions is now plainly exposed. The Justice Department has already signaled it will pursue appeal options, which is the predictable next chapter in a case that many see as symptomatic of a weaponized DOJ.
From a conservative perspective this episode confirms longstanding worries: when the executive branch treats the Justice Department as a political cudgel, both the law and public trust suffer. Conservatives who have warned about prosecutorial overreach and politicized appointments are vindicated by a decision that underscores how far the DOJ was willing to stray from ordinary process to secure headline prosecutions.
That said, the outcome should not be celebrated as an accident-free win for the rule of law; it’s a warning. Installing partisan loyalists to sidestep normal confirmation processes creates legal fragility and fuels the narrative that prosecutions are about politics, not justice—precisely the situation that undermines conservative calls for a fair, accountable, and consistent justice system.
The remedy is straightforward and urgent: restore norms around U.S. attorney appointments, require transparency and Senate confirmation where the Constitution and statute demand it, and hold officials accountable when they attempt legal shortcuts for political ends. The appeal will play out in court, but the larger fight is over whether Americans will tolerate a Justice Department that serves the powerful few or returns to applying the law evenly and without political theater.
