Federal Judges Rebuke Justice Department in Collapse of High-Profile Trump-Era Prosecutions

Washington, Jan. 2026 — Two federal judges have delivered a sweeping and unusually severe rebuke to the Justice Department under Attorney General Pam Bondi, dismantling high-profile prosecutions of James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James and raising profound questions about prosecutorial conduct, executive authority, and the integrity of the federal criminal justice system.

The rulings do far more than dismiss charges. In sharply worded opinions, the judges concluded that the cases were built on unlawful appointments, fundamentally flawed grand jury proceedings, and investigative failures so serious that they undermined the legitimacy of the prosecutions from their inception.

Together, the decisions amount to one of the most consequential judicial interventions into a sitting Justice Department in decades.

An Unlawful Appointment at the Core

The first blow came from Senior U.S. District Judge Cameron McGowan Currie, who examined the appointment of Lindsey Halligan, the interim U.S. attorney selected by the Trump administration and Attorney General Bondi to oversee the prosecutions.

Judge Currie found that Halligan’s appointment violated federal law governing interim U.S. attorneys. The statutory requirements, designed to prevent presidents from installing political loyalists without Senate confirmation or proper oversight, were not followed.

“This was not a technical defect,” Judge Currie wrote. Because Halligan lacked lawful authority to serve, every action she took in that capacity—including approving indictments—was legally invalid.

As a result, Judge Currie ordered the dismissal of all charges stemming from Halligan’s tenure, including the prosecutions of Comey and James.

Legal experts described the ruling as devastating.

“When a court says the prosecutorial authority never legally existed, it’s not just losing a case,” said a former federal prosecutor. “It’s the judicial equivalent of pulling the foundation out from under the entire operation.”

Grand Jury Proceedings Called Into Question

The second ruling, issued by U.S. Magistrate Judge William Fitzpatrick in the Comey case, focused on how the indictment was obtained. His findings were equally alarming.

Judge Fitzpatrick concluded that prosecutors made fundamental misstatements of law to the grand jury, undermining the constitutional role of the grand jury as an independent check on executive power.

Grand jurors, who are not lawyers, rely on prosecutors to accurately explain legal standards. When those standards are misstated, Judge Fitzpatrick noted, the grand jury cannot meaningfully assess whether probable cause exists.

The judge also found that potentially privileged material—protected communications that should never have been shown—was improperly presented to the grand jury, further tainting the process.

Most strikingly, Judge Fitzpatrick wrote that the indictment process was so disorganized that it was unclear whether the grand jury ever reviewed or approved the final version of the charges filed against Comey.

“If the grand jury did not vote on the actual indictment, then the constitutional requirement was not satisfied,” the judge concluded.

Evidence Handling Raises Further Concerns

The controversy deepened following Judge Fitzpatrick’s issuance of an evidence preservation order.

According to court records and subsequent investigative findings, courthouse security footage shows Attorney General Bondi leaving the courthouse carrying boxes of documents shortly after the order was issued. Investigators later reported that case files expected to be preserved could not be located.

The Justice Department has not publicly explained the footage or the missing materials.

Legal analysts cautioned against drawing premature conclusions but noted that the sequence of events presents serious legal questions.

“When evidence disappears after a preservation order, that is one of the gravest issues a court can confront,” said a former Justice Department ethics official. “At minimum, it demands a full accounting.”

The Collapse of a Political Strategy

The failed prosecutions strike at the heart of what critics have described as a broader effort by President Trump’s administration to pursue legal action against political adversaries.

Comey, the former FBI director, oversaw the bureau during the Russia investigation and was fired by Trump in 2017. Letitia James led civil fraud investigations into Trump’s business empire, resulting in substantial financial penalties.

The Justice Department’s cases against them were widely seen as a test of whether the administration could translate Trump’s public grievances into criminal accountability for his critics.

Instead, the outcome has been the opposite.

Federal judges have now placed into the public record findings that the prosecutions were unlawfully authorized and fundamentally compromised by misconduct. Rather than validating claims against Comey and James, the rulings provide them with judicial vindication.

Institutional Fallout

The repercussions extend beyond the dismissed cases.

Defense attorneys across the country are expected to cite the rulings in challenging the credibility of Justice Department prosecutions, particularly in cases involving claims of obstruction of justice or evidence tampering.

Bondi, meanwhile, remains responsible for overseeing some of the most politically sensitive matters before the department, including reviews of the Epstein files and other investigations under intense public scrutiny.

“Every representation the department makes will now be viewed through the lens of these findings,” said a former Justice Department official. “That loss of credibility is extraordinarily difficult to repair.”

Bar associations in jurisdictions where Bondi is licensed may also review the findings to determine whether professional discipline is warranted. Under ethical rules, attorneys can face sanctions—including disbarment—for mishandling evidence or violating court orders.

Oversight and the Road Ahead

Congressional Democrats have already signaled that oversight hearings are likely. Inspectors general within the Justice Department may also open inquiries into the appointment process, grand jury practices, and evidence handling.

The rulings do not themselves impose criminal liability, but they create a detailed judicial record that could support further investigation by future administrations or independent prosecutors.

For now, the message from the federal judiciary is unmistakable.

These were not routine losses in court. They were declarations that the most basic legal safeguards—lawful authority, truthful presentation of law, respect for grand jury independence, and preservation of evidence—were not observed.

In seeking to use the justice system against perceived enemies, the administration instead exposed itself to scrutiny that may define its legal legacy.

As one former federal judge put it, “When the courts conclude that the process itself was unlawful, the damage goes far beyond any single case. It strikes at the credibility of the institution.”

That reckoning, legal experts say, is only beginning.