‘Without prejudice’: What this 2-word legalese means for the dismissed charges against James Comey and Letitia James
On November 24, 2025, U.S. District Judge Cameron McGowan Currie dismissed the indictments against former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James, effectively blocking the Department of Justice’s attempts to prosecute these prominent figures who have been critical of former President Donald Trump. The judge’s decision stemmed from the unlawful appointment of interim U.S. Attorney Lindsey Halligan, who filed the cases against Comey and James. Currie’s ruling was significant, as she dismissed the indictments “without prejudice,” meaning that while the current charges were invalidated, the government retains the option to refile them if procedural issues are rectified.
Judge Currie’s ruling highlighted the complexities surrounding the appointment of U.S. attorneys. Under federal law, an interim U.S. attorney can only serve for a limited period, and after that, district judges must appoint someone to fill the role. In this case, Halligan’s appointment was deemed void because it occurred after the expiration of a 120-day period following the previous U.S. attorney’s appointment. This procedural misstep has critical implications for the future of any potential prosecutions against Comey and James, particularly as the statute of limitations for the charges against Comey has likely expired due to the invalid nature of the indictment.
While the Department of Justice retains the option to appeal Currie’s decision or to refile charges with a properly appointed U.S. attorney, the timeline for action is pressing. If the current procedural hurdles are not addressed, and if the statute of limitations has indeed run out, the prospects for prosecuting Comey may be severely limited. Currie’s ruling thus marks a pivotal moment in the ongoing legal saga surrounding these figures, emphasizing the importance of adhering to legal protocols in high-stakes political prosecutions. As legal experts note, this is not the definitive end for these cases, but it certainly represents a significant setback for the Department of Justice as it navigates the complexities of federal law and political accountability.
Former FBI Director James Comey is sworn in remotely at a hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committee in Washington on Sept. 30, 2020.
Ken Cedeno-Pool/Getty Images
A federal judge on Nov. 24, 2025, dismissed the indictments against former
FBI Director James B. Comey
and
New York Attorney General Letitia James
, blocking the Department of Justice’s efforts to prosecute two of President Donald Trump’s
perceived adversaries
.
But U.S. District Judge Cameron McGowan Currie qualified her dismissals, saying she did so “without prejudice.”
What does that legal term mean?
Unaddressed charges
In her ruling, Currie concluded that the appointment of interim U.S. Attorney Lindsey Halligan, who filed the cases against Comey and James, was unlawful.
Currie wrote
:
“Because Ms. Halligan had no lawful authority to present the indictment, I will grant Mr. Comey’s motion and dismiss the indictment without prejudice.”
She wrote the same
about the case against James
.
Currie’s “without prejudice” reference means the dismissal did not address what legal scholars
like me
call the merits or substance of the underlying criminal charges.
A “without prejudice” dismissal is legalese for “you can try again if you can fix the problems with your case.” Had the judge ruled that the dismissals were “with prejudice,” that would have meant the government could not have brought the cases again.
Here’s what prosecutors would need to fix to be able to bring cases against Comey and James again.
Federal law provides
that whenever a U.S. attorney’s position is vacant, the attorney general may appoint an interim U.S. attorney for a period of 120 days. At the end of that period, it’s up to the federal judges of the district where that position is vacant to appoint someone to continue in that role unless and until the president nominates, and the Senate confirms, a U.S. attorney through the normal appointments process.
New York Attorney General Letitia James speaks outside U.S. District Court on Oct. 24, 2025, in Norfolk, Va.
AP Photo/John Clark
The Trump administration appointed Halligan’s predecessor,
U.S. Attorney Erik Siebert
, in that interim role in January 2025. And when the 120 days from his appointment lapsed, the district judges of the Eastern District of Virginia selected him to continue on in his interim role.
Currie found that when Siebert resigned after his reappointment, that did not empower the Trump administration to appoint a new interim prosecutor. The power still resided with the District Court judges. Because of that, Halligan’s appointment and her efforts to secure the Comey and James indictments were void.
The end of the beginning
The
Department of Justice can certainly appeal these rulings
and could get them reversed on appeal, or it could refile them after a new U.S. attorney is named in accordance with law.
It may be too late for the case against Comey, however, because the statute of limitations on those charges has already run out. As
Currie noted in her Comey ruling
, while the statute of limitations is generally suspended when a valid indictment has been filed, an invalid indictment, like the one against Comey, would not have the same effect on the statute of limitations.
That means the time has likely run out on the claims against the former FBI director.
If Currie’s rulings stand, the Justice Department can’t just file the cases again, with Halligan still in this role, unless the Trump administration follows the procedures set forth in the law for her proper appointment.
While this is not the beginning of the end for these prosecutions, it is, at least, the end of the beginning.
Ray Brescia does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
