The Lawfare Podcast Summary

Episode Title: Lawfare Live: Judge Dismisses Indictments Against James Comey and Letitia James
Date: November 24, 2025
Host: Natalie Orpet
Guests: Roger Parloff (Senior Editor, Lawfare), James Pierce (Contributor, Lawfare)

Overview

In this episode, Natalie Orpet is joined by Roger Parloff and James Pierce to examine the recent federal district court decision dismissing the indictments against former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James. The panel explores the statutory and constitutional questions surrounding the appointment of interim U.S. attorneys, the role of the Appointments Clause, and the prospects for refiling or appealing the cases. The discussion is rich with legal detail and informed speculation about broader implications for DOJ practices.

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Context and Background (01:42–03:15)

• Natalie Orpet introduces the episode and gives context:
  • Comey was accused of lying to Congress in September 2020; James was accused of mortgage fraud in Virginia.
  • The prosecutor in both cases, interim U.S. Attorney Lindsey Halligan, was challenged as unlawfully appointed.
  • The dismissal motion was consolidated before Judge Curry—neither defendant’s original trial judge.

2. Judge Curry’s Ruling Explained (03:17–06:54)

• Roger Parloff details the crux of Judge Curry’s decision:
  • Halligan’s appointment fell outside the statutory framework (28 U.S.C. § 546 governs interim appointments).
  • The process for appointing interim U.S. attorneys is limited to 120 days, after which the district court must appoint.
  • When the initial interim attorney (Siebert) resigned, the Attorney General (Bondi) improperly made another interim appointment, violating the statute.
• Key Quote:
  • "Judge Curry said there isn’t an ambiguity and said it was unlawful." – Roger Parloff (06:33)

3. Appointments Clause and Statutory Nuances (06:54–10:03)

• James Pierce explores the constitutional dimension:
  • The Appointments Clause differentiates "principal" and "inferior" officers; U.S. Attorneys are generally seen as "inferior."
  • Congress can allow appointment of inferior officers by the President, department heads, or courts.
  • The main question: Is failure to follow the statutory process a constitutional violation or just a statutory one?
• Key Quote:
  • "The judge here concludes that it's a constitutional Appointments Clause violation." – James Pierce (10:03)

4. Dismissal Without Prejudice: What Next? (10:31–16:35)

• Natalie Orpet and Roger Parloff discuss implications:
  • Dismissal "without prejudice" means charges can be refiled.
  • For Comey, statute of limitations may have expired (the indictment came just before the deadline).
  • 18 U.S.C. § 3288 may provide the government six extra months to re-indict, but its applicability is debatable if the original indictment was void ab initio.
  • Potential for further litigation over whether the statute of limitations is now a bar for prosecution.
  • Both defendants also alleged other misconduct (vindictive/selective prosecution), but Judge Curry's decision was narrowly focused on the appointment issue.

5. Potential Appeal and Further Motions (16:55–23:47)

• James Pierce and Natalie Orpet consider the likely government appeal:
  • Once dismissed, the cases are off the trial judges' dockets; remaining motions (e.g., vindictive prosecution) are on hold pending appeal.
  • The appellate path may include the Fourth Circuit, potential en banc review, and possibly the Supreme Court.
  • If the appellate courts reverse, unresolved motions could come back into play.

6. Wider Disqualification Pattern and DOJ Practices (24:55–30:15)

• Orpet, Parloff, and Pierce place the ruling in national context:
  • Similar interim U.S. attorneys have been disqualified in Nevada, Los Angeles, New Jersey, New Mexico, and New York.
  • Statutory changes in 2006 and 2007 underscore Congress's desire to prevent indefinite service by interim appointees.
  • The current DOJ seems either incompetent or intent on manipulating appointments to serve political ends.

7. Attorney General's Attempt to Ratify Appointments (31:30–37:36)

• Discussion of Bondi’s "ratification" effort:
  • Attempts to retroactively validate Halligan's decisions were procedurally and substantively problematic.
  • Appointment of special prosecutors by the Attorney General could present a harder challenge for the courts to reject—if done in a neutral, non-case-specific way.

8. Venue Shopping and Broader Prosecution Strategies (37:36–39:42)

• Exploration of whether cases could be brought in other districts:
  • Statute of limitations would still apply to Comey; forum shopping likely seen as abusive.
  • Government may be exploring new charges or different venues regardless.

9. Predictions and Takeaways (39:42–45:25)

• Roger Parloff: The ruling is strong and thorough; appellate prospects may depend on higher court attitudes.

• James Pierce: The text, history, and statutory purpose favor the challengers, but higher courts (especially the Supreme Court) may be less receptive; ultimate resolution might just require administration to secure Senate confirmation for appointees.

• Key Quote:

  • "You really get the picture of a government that is either just very incompetent or very committed to sidestepping and otherwise manipulating the appointment process to kind of keep in place those that they want to carry out their bidding." – James Pierce (30:16)

• Key Quote:

  • "Appoint people and work to get that confirmed and make all this stuff go away." – James Pierce (45:22)

Notable Quotes & Timestamps

• "Judge Curry said there isn’t an ambiguity and said it was unlawful."
  Roger Parloff (06:33)
• "The judge here concludes that it's a constitutional Appointments Clause violation."
  James Pierce (10:03)
• "The statute was called the Preserving United States Attorney Independence Act of 2007... and this is why."
  Roger Parloff (26:11)
• "You really get the picture of a government that is either just very incompetent or very committed to sidestepping and otherwise manipulating the appointment process to kind of keep in place those that they want to carry out their bidding."
  James Pierce (30:16)
• "If they did it like James said, in some sort of more, you know, a mortgage fraud prosecutor or something like that, then... it would be pretty hard to find fault."
  Roger Parloff (37:25)
• "Appoint people and work to get that confirmed and make all this stuff go away."
  James Pierce (45:22)

Important Segment Timestamps

• [01:42] – Episode context and cast introductions
• [03:17] – Judge Curry’s ruling examined
• [06:54] – Appointments Clause law and nuances
• [10:31] – Dismissal without prejudice: next steps
• [16:55] – Appellate process and case status
• [24:55] – Frequency of interim U.S. attorney disqualifications
• [31:30] – Ratification attempt and special prosecutor theory
• [37:36] – Venue/post-dismissal prosecution strategies
• [39:42] – Predictions on likely outcomes and appeals

Tone & Language

The conversation is measured, analytical, and serious, with a tone of legal rigor and cautious speculation. Speakers make clear distinctions between statutory requirements and constitutional implications, often flagging areas of legal uncertainty or disagreement.

Conclusion

This episode provides a comprehensive, clear-eyed analysis of Judge Curry’s dismissal of the indictments against Comey and James. The participants demystify statutory and constitutional dimensions, offer candid assessments of DOJ practices, and map out possible next moves for prosecutors and courts. Anyone following high-level federal prosecutions or the functioning of the Justice Department in politically charged environments would find this discussion richly informative.