Lindsey Halligan, a close ally of President Donald Trump, appeared before a federal grand jury in late September seeking criminal charges against former FBI Director James Comey, one of Trump’s most frequent targets.
Halligan had been appointed interim U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia just days earlier, following Trump’s public complaints about what he viewed as the Justice Department’s failure to prosecute his political adversaries. Despite having no prior prosecutorial experience, Halligan proceeded without the support of career prosecutors in her office, who refused to participate in the case.
She managed to secure an indictment against Comey, but the case quickly unraveled. A series of procedural and legal errors led to Monday’s dismissal of both the Comey case and a separate prosecution of New York Attorney General Letitia James, another frequent Trump critic.
U.S. District Judge Cameron McGowan Currie ruled that Halligan’s appointment violated federal law limiting the tenure of interim U.S. attorneys, rendering both prosecutions invalid. The decision reflects growing judicial resistance to Trump’s push to use the Justice Department against individuals who have investigated or criticized him.
“When Trump’s bluster and revenge hits the reality of the courtroom, it tends to fall apart,” said Randall Eliason, a law professor at George Washington University. “When those cases are subjected to scrutiny, it turns out that a lot of other problems are revealed.”
The Justice Department has vowed to appeal the ruling and could still seek new indictments. Prosecutors deny that Halligan acted improperly or out of partisan motivation.
“I take umbrage at the idea that the work that our prosecutors are doing is weaponization,” Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche said at a recent conservative legal conference.
“The facts of the indictments against Comey and James have not changed and this will not be the final word on this matter,” White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson added in a statement.
The Justice Department declined to comment further, referring inquiries to its court filings.
Mounting Legal Errors
Judge Currie’s ruling also highlighted how internal missteps within the Justice Department undermined cases Trump and his allies have aggressively promoted.
Qualified prosecutors “who understand, know, and care about the rules are showing themselves unwilling” to execute Trump’s directives, said Kristy Parker, counsel at Protect Democracy, an advocacy group that has filed multiple lawsuits against the Trump administration.
In the Comey case, the grand jury initially rejected the lead charge in Halligan’s proposed indictment, forcing prosecutors to rewrite the document. The magistrate judge handling the case expressed confusion when two versions of the indictment appeared in court, and the trial judge, Michael Nachmanoff, questioned whether the grand jury had ever reviewed the final version.
A subsequent review found that Halligan may have committed “profound” procedural mistakes, including introducing privileged evidence and misstating the law to the grand jury. Prosecutors disputed these findings, insisting in court filings that no “tainted evidence” was presented.
Judge Currie ultimately ruled that Halligan had no legal authority to prosecute Comey or James because her appointment was defective. She also dismissed attempts by senior officials to retroactively legitimize her actions.
“It would mean the Government 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,” Currie wrote. “That cannot be the law.”
Broader Challenges to Trump’s Legal Agenda
The setback adds to a string of legal obstacles facing prosecutors aligned with Trump’s renewed efforts to pursue critics and political opponents. In other high-profile cases tied to the administration’s agenda, grand juries have refused to indict and trial juries have declined to convict.
In Tennessee, a federal judge recently found that Kilmar Abrego, a Salvadoran migrant deported under Trump’s direction, made a preliminary showing that his prosecution was retaliatory. Meanwhile, Reuters reported that the Justice Department is examining the conduct of two Trump allies involved in a probe targeting Democratic Senator Adam Schiff, another of Trump’s outspoken adversaries.
Despite the court setback, Monday’s ruling is unlikely to end the Justice Department’s pursuit of figures Trump has criticized. The department continues to prosecute former National Security Adviser John Bolton for allegedly sharing classified information—charges supported by career prosecutors in Maryland. Bolton has pleaded not guilty, calling the case an “abuse of power.”
Federal prosecutors are also reviewing mortgage fraud allegations against Senator Schiff and Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook, both of whom deny wrongdoing. Separately, the FBI has requested interviews with several Democratic lawmakers who publicly urged soldiers to resist illegal orders—remarks that angered Trump.
In Miami, the U.S. Attorney’s Office is re-examining the intelligence assessment that Russia sought to aid Trump’s 2016 campaign, fueling speculation that prosecutors could pursue cases tied to what Trump and his allies describe as a “deep state conspiracy.”
