Here’s a look at the most pertinent questions following the dismissal of the cases against James Comey and Letitia James — and what might come next.
The criminal cases against former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James are gone — for now. But a federal judge’s decision to dismiss the indictments and eject the lead prosecutor, Lindsey Halligan, raises a long list of questions about what comes next.
U.S. District Judge Cameron Currie concluded that Halligan’s appointment by Attorney General Pam Bondi to lead the federal prosecutors’ office in the Eastern District of Virginia was illegal. And because Halligan was the only prosecutor to sign off on the Comey and James prosecutions, Currie ruled that the cases must be dismissed.
A grand jury indicted Comey in September on charges that he lied to Congress in 2020 when discussing media leaks related to the FBI’s investigation of President Donald Trump and his links to Russia. James, who sued Trump in a massive civil fraud case in 2022, was indicted two weeks later on mortgage fraud charges. Both claimed they were targeted by Halligan — Trump’s former personal lawyer — to carry out Trump’s personal vendetta against them.
Judges in each case were weighing those “vindictive prosecution” concerns before Currie shut down the cases Monday over Halligan’s legitimacy.
But Currie also left a window for prosecutors to try again. And Comey made clear in a video that he expects to be targeted anew by Trump and his allies at DOJ.
Here’s a look at the most pertinent questions following the dismissal of the two politically charged cases and what might come next.
Will the Justice Department re-indict Comey or James?
DOJ has not yet said whether it intends to pursue new indictments of either Comey or James — and if so, which prosecutor would be in charge of bringing the cases. But Trump has made clear that prosecuting adversaries like Comey and James is a priority, so it’s unlikely the administration will go quietly.
James’ attorney Abbe Lowell cheered the closure of the case Monday, with a nod to the possibility that the story isn’t over yet.
“We will continue to challenge any further politically motivated charges through every lawful means available,” Lowell said.
Comey, too, said in a video to supporters that he anticipates future efforts by Trump to punish him.
“I know that Donald Trump will probably come after me again and my attitude’s going to be the same,” Comey said. “I’m innocent. I am not afraid. And I believe in an independent federal judiciary.”
At a press conference in Memphis, Tennessee, on Monday announcing anti-crime efforts there, Bondi said the Justice Department would take an “immediate appeal” of the judge’s rulings and also pursue “all available legal action.” She did not elaborate.
Any appeal, which would go to the Richmond, Virginia-based 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, could mean a delay for any attempt to re-indict Comey or James.
Is the Comey case cooked since the clock ran out?
When Halligan raced to indict Comey just three days after Bondi appointed her at Trump’s urging, it was to beat a Sept. 30 statute of limitations that would have prevented her from indicting him at all.
Currie’s dismissal of the case, however, may have triggered a law that provides a six-month period for the Justice Department to try again, even after the statute of limitations expired. But it’s murky.
The judge herself suggested that the “void” indictment means there was never a valid trigger for the six-month grace period that would normally accompany the dismissal of an indictment. Other legal experts, however, say federal law is clear: if an indictment is thrown out “for any reason,” as the law states, the Justice Department has six months for a do-over.
Was this the cleanest outcome for the Justice Department?
Currie’s ruling Monday disqualifying Halligan based on how she came into the role was arguably the least painful way for the Justice Department to lose the Comey and James cases. That’s because it leaves unresolved a number of actions by the Trump administration and prosecutors that could’ve stung even more.
Rulings throwing the cases out as selective or vindictive prosecutions would have been accompanied by recitations of the unusual tactics Trump employed to see his perceived enemies in the dock. And any decisions undercutting the substance of the charges against Comey or James would have implied they were not guilty of any crime.
Multiple judges had also been sharply questioning DOJ about Halligan’s actions before the grand jury that indicted Comey. And a ruling voiding that indictment based on recent revelations in court that Halligan didn’t physically show the grand jury the final indictment have raised more questions about Halligan’s competence and meager experience.
The challenge to Halligan’s appointment largely skirts those questions by zeroing in on a rather obscure question of interpretation of the attorney general’s authority to temporarily fill vacant U.S. attorney posts.
Asked about Trump’s view of the decision, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said, “His reaction was, ‘More of the same.’” She dismissed Currie’s action as “a technical ruling” and called the judge a “partisan.”
What happens to the selective prosecution claims?
Currie’s decision cut short both cases, leaving unresolved the most explosive question in each: whether the indictments were the product of Trump’s personal animus against Comey and James.
U.S. District Judge Michael Nachmanoff, Comey’s trial judge, weighed that question during a hearing last week and pointedly questioned the Justice Department about it. Comey’s lawyers urged him to rule on it quickly and suggested they wanted the matter resolved alongside questions about Halligan’s legitimacy.
It seems unlikely Nachmanoff can make any findings on that question now that Currie has closed the case. But the issue is likely to be at the heart of any renewed prosecution of Comey or James — particularly as Trump’s effort to pressure his administration to bring new investigations and prosecutions has only increased in recent days.
What happens to Halligan?
Despite Currie’s ruling, the administration plans to keep Halligan at the U.S. Attorney’s Office in the Eastern District of Virginia, Bondi said Monday. The attorney general said her move appointing Halligan as a “special” attorney ensures that other cases in the office won’t be jeopardized even if the appeals court rules against the administration.
“We have made Lindsey Halligan a special U.S. Attorney, so she is in court, she can fight in court just like she was,” Bondi said. “Lindsey Halligan is an excellent U.S. attorney. And shame on them for not wanting her in office.”