A judge appointed by Clinton dismissed the U.S. Department of Justice’s indictment against former FBI Director James Comey, stating that the appointment of interim U.S. Attorney Lindsay Harrigan for Virginia’s Eastern District was unlawful. The Trump administration is planning to appeal this decision.
U.S. District Judge Cameron McGowan Curry presented a 29-page ruling regarding the lawsuit against Comey, who faces charges of making false statements and obstructing Congress.
Comey is seeking to have the indictment dismissed on the basis that Harrigan, the only prosecutor to present the case to a grand jury, was not legally appointed per Article 28, Section 546 of the U.S. Constitution and the Constitution’s Appointments Clause. I concur with Comey’s argument that the Attorney General’s effort to name Harrigan as interim U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia was ineffective. Since Harrigan did not have the legal authority to file the indictment, I grant Comey’s motion and dismiss the indictment without prejudice.
Chad Mizell, a former Chief of Staff at the Justice Department, expressed that he believes the ruling is flawed on several counts, emphasizing that dismissing the charges is not the right course of action. He further mentioned that both indictments received approval from the higher-ups at the Justice Department, suggesting that while this ruling might delay the trial, it wouldn’t halt it. An appeal is in the works, and he insists that both Comey and Harrigan are not innocent.
Curry sided with Comey’s legal team by stating that the statute “limits the total term of an interim appointment of the Attorney General to 120 days,” which prevents any further appointments after that period.
According to the judge, while the code permits the Attorney General to appoint an interim U.S. attorney for 120 days, it is “clear” that district judges have the power to appoint a new interim U.S. attorney once that period expires.
Specifically, the language and construction of subsection (d) indicates that appointment authority (1) transfers to the district court after the 120-day period and (2) does not revert to the Attorney General if the federally elected U.S. attorney steps down before the Senate-confirmed U.S. attorney takes office.
Prosecutors contended that “the law does not specifically prevent the Justice Department from appointing interim U.S. attorneys in succession, and even if Mr. Harrigan’s appointment were invalid, dismissing the charges would not be the right response,” as reported by the Associated Press.
A separate lawsuit involving New York Attorney General Letitia James was also filed in the Eastern District under Harrigan, with legal teams from both James and Comey asking Judge Curry to dismiss the charges.
After Eric Siebert’s 120-day interim term expired, district judges agreed he could remain until Senate confirmation. Meanwhile, it was reported that Trump alleged Siebert resigned before being confirmed, claiming he fired him for making a controversial statement aimed at Attorney General Pam Bondi, which he consequently highlighted as part of his prosecution efforts against New York’s Attorney General.
Trump commented, “I woke him up, and he never intended to do the job. That’s why the two worst Democratic senators supported him so strongly. He even misled the media into thinking he resigned and that we had no case. No, I fired him. We have a strong case, and many legal experts agree.”
The case is known as US vs. Comey, No. 1:25-cr-00272-MSN-WEF, adjudicated in the United States Court of Appeals, Alexandria Division, Eastern District of Virginia.
