Letitia James and James Comey

The judicial coup pounded the separation of powers once again on Monday, with liberal Judge Cameron Currie's haughty dismissal of federal indictments against deep state creep James Comey and leftist New York State Attorney General Letitia James.

But constitutional law experts say Currie's judicial overreach — and possibly the law that allowed it — isn't likely to survive the scrutiny of higher courts.

"She got it wrong, quite clearly, and will almost certainly be reversed," Will Chamberlain, senior counsel at the Article Three Project, wrote in an X post.

The Department of Justice plans to fight Currie's ruling in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, according to White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt. The DOJ is appealing similar rulings in the Third and Ninth Circuits.

No Lawful Authority?

In dismissing the indictments, Currie, a Clinton nominee, opined that Attorney General Pam Bondi unlawfully appointed Lindsey Halligan as interim U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia. Currie wasn't satisfied with Halligan's prosecutorial pedigree.

"On September 25, 2025, Lindsey Halligan, a former White House aide with no prior prosecutorial experience, appeared before a federal grand jury in the Eastern District of Virginia. Having been appointed Interim U.S. Attorney by the Attorney General just days before, Ms. Halligan secured a two-count indictment charging former FBI Director James B. Comey, Jr. with making false statements to Congress and obstructing a congressional proceeding," Currie wrote in the short and snarky order tossing Comey's indictment. She issued a nearly identical decision in favor of James.

The judge sided with attorneys for Comey and James, who argued that President Donald Trump's pick to succeed the previous U.S. Attorney violated Section 546 of the U.S. Code on filling federal prosecutor vacancies. Bondi tapped Halligan for the post after former U.S. Attorney Erik Siebert reportedly resigned following his refusal to pursue indictments against the former FBI director and the Trump-hating New York attorney general.

"I agree with Mr. Comey that the Attorney General's attempt to install Ms. Halligan as Interim U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia was invalid. And because Ms. Halligan had no lawful authority to present the indictment, I will grant Mr. Comey's motion and dismiss the indictment without prejudice."

'This Judge is a Democrat Partisan.'

Comey was indicted in September on allegations that he lied to and obstructed Congress in his 2020 testimony about his involvement in the Russia collusion hoax. James' indictment on charges she lied to her lender on her mortgage application came a couple weeks later.

Mike Davis, founder and president of the constitution-defending Article III Project, said the grand jury got it right and Currie's ruling was the latest chapter in the left's long campaign of weaponizing justice against the right. In a post on X, Davis wrote that the evidence is "overwhelming" against the former FBI director and New York's attorney general.

Davis asserts Siebert "refused to prosecute these Democrat operatives. So the Attorney General picked a new one who is unafraid to follow the law."
"What is the Democrats' response? Unsurprisingly, an Obama judge hand-selected a Clinton judge," the attorney wrote.

"Then the Clinton judge tossed both indictments. And the first sentence in both nearly identical orders, in which the Clinton judge personally and gratuitously attacks Lindsey Halligan, makes it crystal clear this judge is a Democrat partisan."

'Aided by the Legislative Branch'

Legal analyst Keith Gross, who previously served as Florida's assistant state attorney general, said Currie is wrong, but so is another branch of government.

"This abuse of judicial power was aided by the legislative branch," Gross told The Federalist Monday in a phone interview.

In 1986, Congress came up with a means for the executive and judicial branches to share authority in filling U.S. attorney vacancies. Section 546 gave the attorney general the ability to appoint interim U.S. attorneys for up to 120 days. When that period expired, Congress turned the power over to the U.S. district court, with the interim attorney serving until the vacancy is filled. Congress passed the Preserving United States Attorney Independence Act of 2007. The amended version of Section 546 remains in place today.

The shared authority law, Gross said, usurps the executive branch's power to appoint the attorneys who work for the executive branch. And under those powers, the president — via the DOJ — has discretion in prosecutor appointments.

Gross said he hopes the case goes to the Supreme Court, with the White House seeking "to establish executive authority."

"All executive power is vested in the executive branch," the legal expert said. "Any notion that congress can write a law giving themselves authority or giving it to a judge is an absurd notion."

'Two Systems of Justice'

Federal district courts in particular have proved to be the leading player in the left's resistance movement to freeze the Trump administration and the America First agenda. The Supreme Court has already attempted to rein in activist judges who have issued broad, nationwide injunctions against the administration's policies. But without enforcing its order, lower court judges have run roughshod over the rule of law in the name of political preferences.

Democrats have screamed that Trump is installing prosecutors who will prosecute his political enemies. They like to pretend their leftist lawfare against Trump and his allies for the better part of the last decade isn't weaponized justice.

A lot of Americans don't see it that way. Leavitt said Currie's ruling is an attempt "to shield" Comey and James from accountability.

Just more evidence, Davis said, that "we have two systems of justice."

"One [in which] Democrats weaponize against enemies. And one [in which] Democrats weaponize to protect allies," Davis wrote.