As New York Attorney General Letitia James has learned, a big-ticket federal judge can wrench the wheels of justice to crush criminal cases. The judge pointed to the illegal appointment of the prosecutor in charge of those cases. On Monday, Judge Cameron McGowan Currie issued a dramatic ruling. He ordered that Lindsey Halligan, interim U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, not have legal standing to seek these indictments.
Judge Currie’s decision stems from concerns surrounding Halligan’s appointment process. Appointed to the position in September 2025, she has nevertheless come under fire since she began her tenure. The judge emphasized that Halligan’s appointment was invalid, stating, “I conclude that the Attorney General’s attempt to install Ms. Halligan as Interim U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia was invalid and that Ms. Halligan has been unlawfully serving in that role since September 22, 2025.”
The mortgage fraud charges against Letitia James and lie to Congress charges against James Comey. Both indictments came on the heels of Halligan’s swearing in, raising questions about whether these actions were above board.
The chronology of events tells a different – and very controversial – story about Halligan’s involvement. Erik Siebert, her predecessor, was sworn in as interim U.S. attorney in January. Yet, he was fired in September after it was determined that there was insufficient evidence to charge James with any crime. Soon after Siebert departed, judges in the Eastern District of Virginia opted to keep Halligan’s appointment going. This extension far exceeded the federal law limit of 120 days for temporary acting appointments.
James Comey’s indictment is unique in another sense due to the statute of limitations on his charges. That statute is scheduled to expire on September 30, 2025. This timing has led many to question the prosecution’s motivations and legality.
In a statement responding to the dismissal, Letitia James remarked that “all actions flowing from Ms. Halligan’s defective appointment” were “unlawful exercises of executive power and must be set aside.” This ruling has deep implications well beyond these four individual cases. This raises issues about Halligan’s power to introduce any indictments while in office.
In response, James’ attorney Abbe Lowell cast doubt on why Halligan was in talks with the company. He stated, “The President went to extreme measures to substitute one of his allies to bring these baseless charges after career prosecutors refused.”
Judge Currie has now dismissed both cases “without prejudice”—meaning that they can be refiled. In theory, this allows the government to refile charges under a correctly appointed U.S. attorney. Fortunately, this part of the ruling makes it possible for new litigation to be filed in the future.
The detailed legal landscape continues to rapidly change. This ruling is an important victory for defendants and illuminates the broader, persistent culture war over political appointees in federal judicial positions.