Constitutional law expert Jonathan Turley commented on Monday regarding New York Attorney General Letitia James’s situation, suggesting she might want to temper her celebrations after a federal judge appointed by President Clinton dismissed the bank fraud accusations against her.
Turley noted on “Hannity” that the Trump administration is likely to appeal the decision, arguing that the court interpreted the law too narrowly.
He explained that when there’s a vacancy in the U.S. attorney’s office, the president can appoint an interim U.S. attorney for 120 days. However, the previous interim, Lindsey Harrigan, had already used that time limit, so after those 120 days, it’s up to the court to appoint someone new.
On Monday, Judge Cameron Curry dismissed the charges against both Letitia James and former FBI Director James Comey, stating that the claims were unjust because they stemmed from unqualified U.S. attorneys.
Both lawsuits were dismissed but could potentially be prosecuted again. Attorney General Pam Bondi told reporters that the Justice Department intends to pursue all legal avenues, including immediate appeals, to hold James and Comey accountable for alleged misconduct.
Following the announcement of the dismissal, James issued a statement expressing her gratitude for the support received nationwide, describing it as a “victory.”
Turley, however, cautioned James against celebrating too soon, indicating that the dismissal came “without prejudice.” This means that even if the appeal fails, new charges could still be brought against her. The judge specifically refrained from dismissing the case with prejudice, allowing for further resolution of the issues involved.
David Schoen, a former lawyer during Trump’s impeachment, echoed Turley’s sentiments, suggesting that this development does not significantly hinder the Trump administration.
Schoen pointed out that some respected scholars have criticized the court’s decision, mentioning figures like Steve Calabresi and Paul Cassel. Calabresi argues that the provision in Act 546 is unconstitutional and infringes on executive powers, referencing several recent cases on the exclusive rights of the executive branch, while Cassel maintains that the president maintains the right to appoint an interim U.S. attorney or, in this scenario, let James continue in the acting role.
