‘Without prejudice’: What this 2-word legalese means for the dismissed charges against James Comey and Letitia James
In a significant legal development, U.S. District Judge Cameron McGowan Currie dismissed the indictments against former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James on November 24, 2025. This ruling effectively blocked the Department of Justice’s attempts to prosecute these high-profile figures, both of whom have been perceived as adversaries of former President Donald Trump. The judge’s dismissal came on the grounds that the appointment of interim U.S. Attorney Lindsey Halligan, who initiated the indictments, was unlawful. Currie’s ruling stated that Halligan lacked the lawful authority to present the indictment, leading to a dismissal “without prejudice,” which means the government retains the option to refile charges if procedural issues are rectified.
The implications of a “without prejudice” ruling are crucial in this context. It allows the Department of Justice to potentially pursue the charges again, provided they follow the correct legal protocols to appoint a new U.S. attorney. In her ruling, Judge Currie clarified that the 120-day appointment limit for interim U.S. attorneys had expired, and the authority to appoint a replacement belonged to the district judges of the Eastern District of Virginia, rather than the Trump administration. This legal misstep casts doubt on the future of the cases against Comey and James, particularly since the statute of limitations for the charges against Comey has likely expired as a result of the invalid indictment.
The situation raises questions about the DOJ’s next steps. While the department can appeal Judge Currie’s ruling or refile the charges once a new U.S. attorney is appointed appropriately, the time constraints related to the statute of limitations complicate matters for Comey. If these rulings stand, the Justice Department faces significant hurdles in reviving the cases against both Comey and James, highlighting the intricate balance of legal authority and procedural correctness in high-stakes prosecutions. As this legal saga unfolds, it marks a pivotal moment in the ongoing tensions between former Trump administration officials and their critics, with the potential for further developments in the future.
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.
