December 2025

In one of the most consequential legal pushbacks of Donald Trump’s second term, U.S. District Judge Cameron McGowan Currie on November 24, 2025, dismissed the criminal indictments against two of Trump’s highest-profile political enemies: former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James.

The dismissals were sweeping, scathing, and—importantly—procedural, not evidentiary. But they have blown a crater into the Justice Department’s early strategy of prosecuting Trump-era adversaries—and they’ve triggered a political storm over whether new indictments could be filed “as early as this week.”

Here’s what really happened.

How We Got Here: The Indictments and the Controversy

The Charges

Both indictments landed in September 2025 in the Eastern District of Virginia, signed by interim U.S. Attorney Lindsey Halligan—a former TV commentator and Trump White House aide with zero prior prosecutorial experience.

James Comey

Charged with lying to Congress and obstruction of Congress for allegedly giving false statements in 2020 about the Crossfire Hurricane investigation.

He pleaded not guilty, calling the case “Trump’s revenge.”

Letitia James

Charged with mortgage fraud and false statements to a lender concerning a 2020 home loan application.

She also pleaded not guilty, calling the charges “absurd political retaliation.”

She is best known for winning a $454 million civil fraud judgment against Trump in 2023.

The Appointment Problem

All charges were brought after Trump fired the sitting U.S. Attorney Erik Siebert, who had refused to indict the cases for lack of evidence. Instead of allowing the district court to appoint the next interim U.S. Attorney—as required by 28 U.S.C. § 546 once the Attorney General’s 120-day window expires—Trump installed Halligan directly.

Judge Currie ruled that appointment illegal, rendering all of Halligan’s actions void.

The Ruling: “Unlawful Exercises of Executive Power”

On November 24, Judge Currie dismissed both indictments without prejudice, writing:

“All actions flowing from Ms. Halligan’s defective appointment… were unlawful exercises of executive power and are hereby set aside.”

The decision mirrors the Supreme Court’s federal vacancy cases and echoes earlier 2025 dismissals involving Trump-installed prosecutors in Nevada and New Jersey.

The judge did not rule on the merits of the cases.
She simply held that the indictments never legally existed.

What It Means for Comey: Statute of Limitations Is Dead

Comey’s alleged false statements occurred in September 2020.
The 5-year statute of limitations expired September 30, 2025.

Because the indictment was void from the start, the clock never stopped.

Comey’s lawyer, Patrick Fitzgerald, told reporters:

“This case is over. The statute has expired. They cannot re-indict him.”

Most legal experts agree.

Unless DOJ attempts a novel (likely impossible) theory that the void indictment tolled the limitations period, Comey is effectively untouchable.

He celebrated on Instagram with:

“I am innocent. I am not afraid. And I believe in an independent judiciary.”

What It Means for Letitia James: Re-Indictment Possible

Letitia James’ alleged mortgage misrepresentations happened in 2025, so no statute problems exist.

Her case was dismissed solely due to Halligan’s invalid appointment.
A properly appointed interim U.S. Attorney could theoretically take the case back to a grand jury and refile.

But:

A new prosecutor must be appointed by the Eastern District of Virginia judges, not the Attorney General.

Any re-indictment must be built from scratch.

Evidence previously gathered may face chain-of-custody or privilege challenges.

Is a re-indictment likely?
Possible, but there is no evidence it will happen “this week.”

Are New Indictments Coming This Week? Probably Not.

Conservative influencers on X—including Gunther Eagleman™, Derrick Evans, and @amuse—have pushed claims that re-indictments are “coming as early as this week,” citing anonymous sources or vague DOJ “momentum.”

But mainstream reporting contradicts this:

NBC News: DOJ intends to appeal the ruling, not refile immediately.

Reuters: DOJ is “evaluating next steps,” with focus on “restoring Halligan’s authority.”

Washington Examiner: Appeals being drafted; no timeline for new indictments.

No judge, no docket, no grand jury witness notices indicate imminent filings.

Bottom line:

There is zero confirmed evidence that new indictments will come this week.

The claim is social-media speculation.

What DOJ Actually Plans to Do

Attorney General Pam Bondi vowed on Nov. 24 to pursue:

“All available legal action, including an immediate appeal.”

That appeal would attempt to salvage Halligan’s appointment and resurrect the original indictments.

But legal scholars—including former OLC officials—say the appeal is likely to fail because:

The 120-day appointment window had clearly expired.

Halligan had no prosecutorial experience, underscoring the “improper intent” critique.

Similar unlawful-appointment cases have already been dismissed in 2025.

Even if the appeal succeeds, Comey cannot be re-indicted due to the expired statute.

Only Letitia James remains legally vulnerable.

Larger Implications: Trump’s Retribution Agenda Hits a Wall

These dismissals strike directly at the heart of Trump’s second-term legal strategy: using DOJ to pursue political enemies.

Recent targets include:

Comey

Letitia James

John Bolton

Adam Schiff (under review)

Various Biden DOJ officials

Judge Currie’s ruling shows that despite Trump’s consolidation of executive power, federal courts remain a major check—especially on appointments and prosecutorial independence.

Meanwhile, Bondi and the White House say the judge is “shielding criminals” and vow to “fight.”