Trump's Political Revenge Strategy Hits Legal Roadblock
Donald Trump's much-publicised "revenge tour" against his political adversaries has encountered a substantial legal setback after a federal judge threw out criminal charges against two high-profile targets. The US president, who had repeatedly promised retribution against his opponents, discovered that the judicial system presents obstacles to such campaigns.
Defective Appointment Sinks Prosecutions
The collapse of the cases against former FBI director James Comey and New York attorney general Letitia James stemmed from what Judge Cameron Currie described as a "defective appointment" of prosecutor Lindsey Halligan. In a ruling delivered on Monday 24 November 2025, Judge Currie determined that Halligan's appointment violated laws governing the Justice Department's ability to install top prosecutors.
The judge wrote in her decision: "I conclude that all actions flowing from Ms Halligan's defective appointment… constitute unlawful exercises of executive power." This fundamental legal error forced the dismissal of indictments against both Comey and James, dealing a significant blow to Trump's personal crusade against his perceived enemies.
Unqualified Prosecutor Chosen After Others Refused
The problematic appointment occurred after several experienced prosecutors declined to pursue the cases against Trump's opponents. Erik Siebert, the US attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia who would normally handle such prosecutions, notably refused to take the case against Letitia James.
Siebert had concluded there were insufficient grounds to prosecute James, who had successfully pursued business fraud charges against the Trump Organisation. His refusal to proceed prompted his resignation before being removed from position.
With multiple career prosecutors expressing similar reluctance, the Trump administration turned to Lindsey Halligan, whose background primarily involved insurance law rather than criminal prosecution. Halligan lacked prior experience presenting evidence before grand juries, a crucial skill required for the high-profile cases she was assigned.
The White House nevertheless proceeded with her appointment, despite her qualifications being mismatched to the complex prosecutions involving serious charges of bank fraud, false statements, and obstruction of congressional investigations.
Legal and Political Consequences
While the Department of Justice retains the option to appeal the ruling, the dismissal represents a substantial victory for both Comey and James, and a conspicuous defeat for Trump's strategy of using the justice system against political opponents.
White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson responded to the ruling by stating: "The facts of the indictments against Comey and James have not changed, and this will not be the final word on this matter."
The cases held particular significance given the history between Trump and the defendants. James had successfully prosecuted the Trump Organisation for business fraud, while Comey was famously fired by Trump in 2017 while overseeing the investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential campaign.
Legal observers noted that the rushed and improper handling of the appointments provided ammunition to critics who accuse Trump of weaponising the justice system for political purposes. The court's robust resistance to these tactics has been welcomed by those concerned about the independence of judicial institutions from political interference.
