Judge Tosses Comey and Letitia James Indictments — Virginia U.S. Attorney’s Office Left in Operational Limbo

Federal prosecutors in the Eastern District of Virginia were thrown into uncertainty after U.S. District Judge Cameron McGowan Currie dismissed indictments against former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James, finding that interim U.S. Attorney Lindsey Halligan’s appointment was unlawful.

Currie wrote that actions taken after what the court called a “defective appointment” were "unlawful exercises of executive power and are hereby set aside.” She dismissed both cases without prejudice, allowing prosecutors the theoretical option to seek new grand-jury indictments — but raised questions about whether Halligan’s grand-jury work could be corrected and whether statute-of-limitations deadlines (particularly in the Comey matter) have already run.

What the ruling means

The judge’s order invalidates the legal foundation for the indictments Halligan obtained, leaving open complex legal questions: whether a new, valid indictment can be sought; whether earlier grand-jury work can be remedied; and whether statutory deadlines preclude refiling, especially for the Comey case, where the relevant five-year window may have closed at the end of September.

Immediate fallout in the U.S. attorney’s office

The decision produced immediate operational confusion in the Alexandria office. Some prosecutors briefly stopped filing court papers while officials debated who could legally appear as the lead prosecutor. Internal guidance initially directed staff to list Robert McBride, the new first assistant, on filings; that instruction was quickly revised and staff were told to continue listing Halligan because the Justice Department had not removed her. The back-and-forth left routine case management and grand-jury scheduling in flux.

Department leadership and legal options

Senior Justice Department officials spent the following day weighing their options, which include filing an immediate appeal of Judge Currie’s ruling and attempting to re-present the cases to a grand jury. Department officials indicated they would pursue “all available legal action,” including an appeal. Some career lawyers viewed efforts to revive the Comey case as difficult given the judge’s forceful findings, while others noted Currie’s opinion left certain issues — notably the statute of limitations — open to interpretation.

Practical questions for prosecutors

Prosecutors were unsure how to proceed with pending matters and who should make case-by-case charging and policy decisions. Career lawyers can typically carry on day-to-day work, but with questions about the lawful authority of the office’s leader, tougher discretionary calls — whether to re-indict, whether to delay grand-jury work, and how to sign filings — became harder to resolve. Several former prosecutors described the situation as a leadership vacuum that could depress morale and complicate ongoing investigations.

Legal perspectives

Legal analysts are split. James Pearce, a former federal prosecutor and now senior counsel at the Washington Litigation Group, said the judge’s opinion suggested Comey could be difficult to re-indict. Patrick Cotter, another former federal prosecutor, observed that the opinion did not definitively resolve the statute-of-limitations question, which might leave room for a prompt refiling. Magistrate Judge William Fitzpatrick, who reviewed grand-jury transcripts in the Comey matter, had already criticized aspects of how the prosecutions were handled — concerns that could affect any renewed charging effort.

What happens next

The Justice Department had not, at the time of the ruling, filed a formal notice of appeal in the district court for either case; such a notice is a routine procedural step for preserving appellate rights. Meanwhile, prosecutors in Alexandria must balance immediate operational needs against strategic legal decisions: appeal the court’s decision, seek new indictments where feasible, or pause pending further guidance.

The outcome will shape not only the fate of the Comey and James matters but also the stability and morale of an office that has experienced sudden leadership turnover and intense scrutiny in recent months.