The Rule of Law

The decision by South Carolina U.S. District Judge Cameron McGowan Currie to dismiss the indictments against former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James is not about clearing anyone’s name — it’s about the rule of law.

And the conservative Judge Currie made clear: these charges never should have existed in the first place.

The core issue wasn’t the allegations but the prosecutor. Lindsey Halligan — a personal attorney for Donald Trump — was never lawfully appointed as interim U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia.

Federal law requires either Senate confirmation or a proper appointment by the Attorney General. Neither happened. She simply did not have the legal authority to bring federal charges against anyone.

Because of that, every indictment she signed was void from the moment it was filed. Judge Currie emphasized what should be obvious: due process matters. Prosecutorial power cannot hinge on political loyalty or end-runs around federal appointment rules. When the government cuts corners, even intentionally high-profile cases collapse under their own illegality.

This is not some technicality. It is the exact safeguard that prevents political actors from weaponizing prosecutions. Without valid authority, there is no case — period. The Constitution doesn’t bend just because a particular outcome is politically useful.

And this ruling illustrates a broader truth we see constantly in our own field: when those in power ignore the legal frameworks meant to ensure fairness, the people who rely on those protections pay the price. Whether it’s a nursing home corporation hiding behind shell companies or a federal office trying to operate without lawful authority, the result is the same — accountability disappears.

Judge Currie’s ruling is a reminder that justice cannot be manufactured through shortcuts. If those bringing the charges don’t follow the law, nothing that follows will ever be legitimate.