CRBC News
Culture
Society
Security
Health
Conflict
Science
Technology
Politics
Environment
Lifestyle
Economy

Judge Dismisses Indictments Over Prosecutor’s Authority — Turley Says Letitia James May Be Celebrating Too Soon

Judge Cameron McGowan Currie dismissed indictments against Letitia James and James Comey on procedural grounds tied to the prosecutor's authority. Legal analyst Jonathan Turley warned the decision addresses who authorized the charges, not whether the allegations are true. James said she was "heartened by today’s victory" and vowed to remain fearless. The Justice Department could try to refile with a lawfully appointed official or seek appellate review.

06:00 AM, 11/25/2025Politics

Federal charges against New York Attorney General Letitia James and former FBI Director James Comey were dismissed by U.S. District Judge Cameron McGowan Currie on procedural grounds after the court found the prosecutor who signed the indictment lacked proper authority. The ruling resolves the immediate case but, according to legal analyst Jonathan Turley, does not amount to a declaration of innocence.

On the broadcast, Turley noted the dismissal turned on the status of the official who authorized the charges, not on the underlying facts. He identified Lindsey Halligan — an attorney whose appointment to the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Eastern District of Virginia was questioned — as the prosecutor whose authority was at issue in the ruling.

"First of all, Letitia James might be celebrating a tad too early," Turley said. "The court is not saying that she was innocent of these charges. The court is simply saying that the person who signed off on the charges did not have authority to do that."

James, in a statement, said she was "heartened by today’s victory" and vowed to "remain fearless in the face of these baseless charges." The specific accusations had included bank fraud and making false statements to a financial institution related to a 2020 home purchase.

Turley outlined two clear paths the Department of Justice could pursue: identify a lawfully appointed official who can reauthorize the indictment and refile the charges, or seek appellate review of Judge Currie's decision. He acknowledged the matter is unusual and highlighted that timing provisions tied to interim appointments — including a 120-day window — complicate the options available to prosecutors.

Either path would keep the case alive: a lawful refiling could restore the indictments, while a successful appeal could reverse the dismissal. Conversely, if appellate courts uphold the ruling and no lawful prosecutor refiles, the dismissal would more plainly close this chapter of the matter.

This ruling underscores how procedural and appointment issues can be determinative in high-profile prosecutions, and why a dismissal on such grounds does not necessarily equate to factual exoneration.

Similar Articles

Trending