The United States Department of Justice has formally appealed a federal court decision that dismissed criminal charges against New York Attorney General Letitia James.
The DOJ is escalating a legal dispute that now centers less on the underlying allegations and more on constitutional limits to prosecutorial authority.
The appeal document, dated Dec. 19, 2025, seeks to overturn a ruling by Senior U.S. District Judge Cameron McGowan Currie of the Eastern District of Virginia, who found that the indictments against James—and separately against former FBI Director James Comey—were invalid because they were obtained by an unlawfully appointed prosecutor.
In her dismissal order, Judge McGowan Currie ruled that the appointment of Lindsey Halligan as Interim U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia violated both 28 U.S.C. § 546 and the Appointments Clause of the U.S. Constitution. As a result, the court voided all actions flowing from that appointment.
“All actions flowing from Ms. Halligan’s defective appointment, including securing and signing Mr. Comey’s indictment, were unlawful exercises of executive power and are hereby set aside,” the judge wrote.
Collapse of the Case Against James
Letitia James had been charged with bank fraud and making false statements to a financial institution, based on allegations that she misrepresented a property purchase in Norfolk, Virginia—listing it as a second home rather than an investment rental—to obtain more favourable mortgage terms. James has consistently denied the allegations.
Following the dismissal, the DOJ made multiple efforts to revive the case. Prosecutors attempted twice to reindict James using out-of-state federal prosecutors, but those efforts failed. A third attempt, involving a new felony count of making a false statement to a financial institution, was also rejected when a federal grand jury returned a “no true bill,” declining to indict.
In a further blow to the prosecution, the DOJ sought to seal the grand jury record after the refusal to indict. U.S. Magistrate Judge William B. Porter denied that request, allowing the failed indictment effort to remain on the public record.
James’ attorney, Abbe Lowell, described the grand jury’s refusal as extraordinary and damaging to the Justice Department’s credibility.
“This unprecedented rejection makes even clearer that this case should never have seen the light of day,” Lowell said. “This case already has been a stain on this Department’s reputation and raises troubling questions about its integrity.”
DOJ Appeal Raises Constitutional Stakes
In its Dec 19 appeal, the DOJ argues that the lower court erred by dismissing the case outright based on the appointment issue, and that Halligan’s role as interim U.S. attorney should not invalidate prosecutorial actions taken during her tenure.
Legal analysts say the appeal places Letitia James’ case at the centre of a broader constitutional debate over executive power and the lawful appointment of federal prosecutors. If Judge McGowan Currie’s ruling is upheld on appeal, it could have implications beyond James’ case—potentially calling into question prosecutions authorized by improperly appointed interim U.S. attorneys elsewhere.
A Case That Now Transcends the Allegations
While James Comey was also affected by the same ruling, the legal and political consequences surrounding Letitia James have drawn sharper attention.
Her case now stands as a test of whether procedural and constitutional violations can nullify criminal prosecutions, regardless of the substance of the allegations.
