The dismissals of the indictments against former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James were a victory for the rule of law, but the victory may be short-lived.

On Monday, a federal judge concluded that the appointment of interim U.S. Attorney Lindsey Halligan was invalid, thereby voiding the indictments she obtained before a grand jury in Virginia. Both cases are dead for now, but White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters that the Department of Justice “will be appealing very soon.” The DOJ also has several avenues to resurrect the indictments.

By now, the background of these cases is well-known. Erik Siebert, the first interim U.S. attorney in the Eastern District of Virginia appointed by Attorney General Pam Bondi, was removed from office for refusing to indict Comey and James. President Donald Trump posted on social media a demand that both be indicted, and recommended Halligan for the job. Until then, Halligan was an insurance lawyer working in the White House, helping to review material from the Smithsonian Institution that the administration deemed objectionable. Bondi did as Trump ordered, appointing Halligan, who promptly indicted both of Trump’s adversaries — Comey for allegedly lying to Congress and James on charges of mortgage fraud.

But according to Monday’s opinion by Judge Cameron McGowan Currie, once Siebert had served the 120 days permitted by federal statute, Bondi doesn’t get a do-over. Until the president nominates and the Senate confirms a permanent U.S. attorney, the plain language of the statute authorizes the district court to appoint the next interim leader of the office. And because Halligan was the only lawyer for the government to sign and present the indictments to the grand jury, the charges in both cases were legally invalid. Without any pending case or controversy — as Article III of the Constitution requires before a matter may come before a court — all remaining motions, including those seeking dismissal for vindictive or selective prosecution and prosecutorial misconduct, are void as well.

The twin dismissals are an important win for our constitutional separation of powers. Requiring Senate confirmation ensures that nominees for U.S. Attorney have the requisite experience, qualifications and political independence to serve as their district’s chief law enforcement officer. The court’s decision represents a clear rebuke of the Trump administration’s efforts to circumvent the confirmation process. The court found that even Bondi’s last-gasp effort to retroactively review and approve the indictments was insufficient. As Judge Currie wrote, the government’s strategy would mean that it “could send any private citizen off the street — attorney or not — into the grand jury room to secure an indictment so long as the attorney general gives her approval after the fact. That cannot be the law.”

But just because these indictments are gone doesn’t mean Comey and James are free from Trump’s pursuit. They remain potential targets because he and Bondi have more options. First, the government can appeal the court’s decision, arguing that the statute — or the president’s inherent power under Article II — allows him to appoint his preferred nominees. In light of the Constitution’s Senate confirmation requirement, success along this path seems like a long shot and would likely substantially delay the prosecutions.

Second, the government could try again. Bondi has now appointed Halligan as a “special attorney.” Bondi could subsequently make Halligan the first assistant U.S. attorney, and then the acting U.S. attorney, effectively restoring Halligan to the position Bondi originally intended. Halligan would then have the authority to present the indictments to the grand jury again. In fact, this time, Halligan could clean up the mistakes she made the first time, when a different judge found that she had misstated the law.

In the Comey case, where the statute of limitations expired just a few days after the charges were filed in September, there is some question as to whether there is sufficient time to bring a new indictment. A federal statute allows the government to refile an indictment within six months of dismissal, even after the statute of limitations has expired, “for any reason.” The same statute also prohibits the filing of a new indictment “where the reason for the dismissal was the failure to file the indictment” within the statute of limitations. One could argue that in this case, Halligan’s invalid appointment — which nullified the original indictment — constitutes a “failure to file.” That argument, however, seems unpersuasive because an indictment was filed, albeit one later dismissed as void. If the government were to pursue this route, it would be well-advised to find a different federal prosecutor to present the case instead of Halligan, who showed every bit of her lack of training and experience the last time around.

Finally, the government could do nothing. Ed Martin, the head of the Justice Department’s “Weaponization” Working Group, has advocated for using criminal investigations simply to “name and shame” perceived wrongdoers, even when the evidence is insufficient to file charges — a stunning abuse of power. Given all the hurdles that remain in convicting Comey and James, perhaps the best route for the White House and the DOJ is to declare victory and go home, satisfied that they have inflicted sufficient pain and humiliation on their perceived enemies. They can continue to scapegoat “partisan” judges, as Leavitt did in her response to Currie’s decision, as the reason for ending this exercise now.

Regardless of the path the Justice Department takes, its reputation has been deeply tarnished by its conduct in these two prosecutions. The cases may be over, but the controversy endures.

____

This column reflects the personal views of the author and does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.

Barbara McQuade is a professor at the University of Michigan Law school, a former U.S. attorney and author of "Attack from Within: How Disinformation Is Sabotaging America."

©2025 Bloomberg L.P. Visit bloomberg.com/opinion. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.