In a major legal and political development, a federal judge has dismissed all criminal charges against New York Attorney General Letitia James after determining that the prosecutor who brought the case was not legally appointed. The ruling also resulted in the dismissal of a separate case involving former FBI Director James Comey.
The decision, issued by U.S. District Judge Cameron McGowan Currie, concluded that Lindsey Halligan — the interim U.S. attorney who led the prosecution — lacked proper authority to oversee the grand jury process. Halligan, who had no prior prosecutorial experience, was installed following the removal of career prosecutors who reportedly declined to pursue the cases. According to the court, her appointment bypassed mandatory Justice Department procedures, rendering all subsequent actions, including the indictments, invalid.
The now-dismissed charges against Letitia James stemmed from allegations of mortgage and bank-fraud related to her purchase of a Virginia property. James consistently denied any wrongdoing and maintained that the accusations were politically driven. Comey, meanwhile, faced allegations of making false statements and obstructing a congressional proceeding connected to past Senate testimony. He too denied the accusations.
Following the ruling, Attorney General James said she was relieved and “heartened” by the judge’s findings. She emphasized her commitment to continuing her work on behalf of New Yorkers and underscored that the case had been a clear example of improper political interference within the justice system.
Legal experts and civil-rights advocates have echoed that sentiment, calling the prosecutions deeply flawed from the start. Many highlighted the unusual timing and the speed with which the indictments were issued, arguing that the cases appeared to be part of a broader strategy targeting critics of the administration that championed the prosecutions.
Although the dismissals are a significant legal victory for both James and Comey, the judge ruled that the cases were dismissed “without prejudice.” This means that, in theory, new charges could be brought in the future if a lawfully appointed prosecutor chose to revisit the allegations. Still, observers believe the ruling marks a serious setback for efforts to pursue the high-profile cases.
The decision is expected to fuel continued debate over political influence within the justice system and the importance of adhering to established legal procedures.
