SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
letitia james
'Keep Up the Fight': Federal Judge Pauses Paramount-Warner Bros. Merger
"History tells the tale of what happens when a few people have great power over markets that are central to Americans' lives: fewer opportunities for more people, worse products and services for all people," said California Attorney General Rob Bonta.
Jul 20, 2026
The $110 billion megamerger between Paramount and Warner Bros., widely criticized as a "disaster" by antitrust advocates, has been temporarily put on hold.
US District Judge Araceli Martínez-Olguín on Monday granted a temporary restraining order sought by several Democratic state attorneys general to pause the merger from going forward.
In her ruling, Martínez-Olguín found that the plaintiffs provided "compelling evidence that the combined firm resulting from the transaction will possess substantial market share in the wide-release theatrical distribution market," meaning that the merger between the two studios is "likely to violate antitrust laws."
The judge—appointed by former President Joe Biden—issued a 14-day restraining order on the merger, writing that "Paramount and Warner Bros. will continue to operate as separate, viable companies competing in the marketplace while they wait for the court to adjudicate this case."
The combination of Paramount and Warner Bros. has long been controversial because it would put control of CBS, CNN, HBO, TikTok, and other major media properties all under the control of David Ellison, the son of billionaire Larry Ellison, a major donor to President Donald Trump.
California Attorney General Rob Bonta, the lead plaintiff in the lawsuit against Paramount-Warner Bros. deal, hailed Martínez-Olguín's ruling as a "critical first win in our case to ensure this megamerger never sees the light of day."
"History tells the tale of what happens when a few people have great power over markets that are central to Americans' lives: fewer opportunities for more people, worse products and services for all people," he said. "With our lawsuit, we're fighting for a free and fair market and a thriving film and television industry that serves creatives and audiences alike."
New York Attorney General Letitia James, a co-plaintiff in the lawsuit, delivered a video statement calling the ruling "an important victory for consumers, for workers, and for fair competition."
"We are taking action to protect New Yorkers from the harms of unlawful corporate consolidation," James added, "and protecting democracy while we're at it."
We just won a court order stopping the merger of @ParamountPics and @warnerbros while our lawsuit continues.
We’re going to keep fighting to keep costs down for consumers, protect jobs, and stop this illegal merger. pic.twitter.com/yfcA0sOoLb
— NY AG James (@NewYorkStateAG) July 20, 2026
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), a longtime critic of the merger, called the ruling "a WIN thanks to the state attorneys general who stood up and pushed back," and added, "Let's keep up the fight."
Rep. Becca Balint (D-Vt.) said the ruling was "welcome news," while warning that "we're not out of the woods yet."
"This merger would force prices up, bring wages down, and lead to people losing jobs—all to bring TikTok, CNN, and CBS under one roof," Balint observed. "Perhaps Paramount CEO David Ellison can't wine and dine his way through this one after all."
Attorney Norm Eisen, co-founder of Democracy Defenders Action, accused the Ellisons of trying to "rush" the merger over the finish line before courts could examine antitrust claims being made against it.
"Now the case gets decided on the merits," Eisen said.
Keep ReadingShow Less
State AGs Applaud Court Blocking 'Unconstitutional' Trump Proof of Citizenship Voting Requirement
"As President Trump has made clear today, the fight to protect the right to vote isn’t over," said California Attorney General Rob Bonfa.
Jun 24, 2026
A federal judge on Wednesday blocked portions of an executive order signed by President Donald Trump last year that required Americans to show proof of citizenship when registering to vote.
US District Court Judge Denise Casper ruled that Trump's March 2025 executive order establishing proof-of-citizenship requirements was illegal because the US Constitution explicitly gives states the power to implement elections, with some oversight and input from the US Congress.
In contrast, wrote Casper, the Constitution "does not grant the president any specific powers over elections," making any effort to regulate voter registration via executive order unconstitutional on its face.
Casper's ruling came about after 19 states sued to block the Trump executive order from taking effect.
New York Attorney General Letitia James expressed gratitude that the court "blocked the president’s unconstitutional attempt to seize control of our elections."
"Generations of Americans fought tirelessly for the right to vote, and we honor their legacy by protecting that right against anyone who tries to undermine it," said James. "As we approach this year’s midterms, I will continue doing everything in my power to protect free and fair elections and defend the sacred right to vote for New Yorkers and all Americans."
Nevada Secretary of State Cisco Aguilar called the ruling "an important reminder to our president that he does not administer our elections." Aguilar vowed that he and other state-level officials nationwide would use every tool we have to protect the right to run our elections at the local level, and the ability of our voters to lawfully participate.”
California Attorney General Rob Bonta celebrated the court victory but warned that Trump would continue efforts to rig the 2026 midterm elections in the GOP's favor.
"As President Trump has made clear today, the fight to protect the right to vote isn’t over," Bonta said. "While President Trump continues to spread lies and feed into delusions about our elections, our coalition of AGs will continue to stand strong in protecting our democracy."
Keep ReadingShow Less
State AGs Sue Over Trump 'Trying to Kill Clean Energy Projects and Destroy Good-Paying Jobs'
"We are fighting back to stop this illegal agreement that threatens to erase over a thousand union jobs and cheat millions of New Yorkers out of clean, affordable energy,” said New York AG Letitia James.
Jun 02, 2026
A group of state attorneys general sued the Trump administration on Tuesday, in an effort to block an unprecedented deal it made to pay an energy company to abandon a pair of large East Coast wind energy projects and invest in more polluting fossil fuel infrastructure instead.
As part of efforts to unilaterally block private wind power construction across the US while revving up fossil fuel production, the Interior Department agreed to pay $928 million in taxpayer funds to the French energy company TotalEnergies to scrap construction plans for a large wind project off the coast of New York and another off North Carolina, the leases for which had been approved back in 2022.
In exchange, the company agreed to halt any future development of clean power in the US and invest hundreds of millions of dollars in oil and gas projects instead.
On Tuesday, New York Attorney General Letitia James announced that she was leading a coalition of seven northeastern state AGs—from New Jersey, Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Vermont—in a lawsuit seeking to block the agreement.
James described the deal as an unlawful attempt to get around a previous court rejection of President Donald Trump’s Day One executive order halting all wind energy development in the US.
“The Trump administration is once again trying to kill clean energy projects and destroy good-paying jobs for New Yorkers," James said. "After repeatedly losing in court, this administration cooked up a sham deal to pay a foreign energy company hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars to abandon offshore wind and invest in oil and gas instead. We are fighting back to stop this illegal agreement that threatens to erase over a thousand union jobs and cheat millions of New Yorkers out of clean, affordable energy.”
The canceled New York project was expected to produce up to 1.4 gigawatts of energy for the state, powering more than 700,000 homes annually. According to a press release from James' office, it was projected to save New Yorkers $10 billion over its 25-year lifespan.
Another section of the Bight construction lease was slated for a wind farm projected to provide about 1.3 gigawatts to homes in New Jersey, powering 650,000 homes and generating $3 billion in economic benefits, according to state officials.
The other project set for North Carolina was projected by TotalEnergies to generate more than 1 gigawatt of power, enough for 300,000 homes.
The Oceantic Network, a nonprofit that supports the construction of offshore wind projects, estimated that the cancellation of a single 1-gigawatt offshore wind project costs between $8.5-9.5 billion in US economic output and about 3,350 construction jobs, along with hundreds of millions of dollars in lost wages.
Liz Burdock, the president and CEO of Oceantic, commended the states attempting to stop the Trump administration from killing the projects at a time when oil and gas costs are skyrocketing, largely due to Trump's war with Iran.
"For more than a year, offshore wind has faced an unprecedented and unrelenting campaign of political interference despite billions in private investment, state commitments, and court rulings," Burdock said. "These continued attacks on offshore wind are not just an assault on a single industry—they are an attack on American workers, energy affordability, national security, and the states’ right to shape their own energy future."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'This is Nuts': Critics Aghast as Trump Appoints 'Personal Henchman' as Acting DNI
"The president has chosen an official who has demonstrated not just willingness but eagerness to use the authorities of government to pursue political retribution," said US Sen. Mark Warner.
Jun 02, 2026
President Donald Trump shocked many observers on Tuesday when he appointed Federal Housing Finance Agency Director Bill Pulte to be his acting director of national intelligence, weeks after Tulsi Gabbard stepped down from the role.
In a Tuesday morning social media post, Trump announced that Pulte would be taking over as DNI while also remaining at his current post at the FHFA, which regulates government-sponsored housing enterprises Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
As noted by a Tuesday CNBC report, Pulte "has no prior experience in an intelligence role. His tenure at FHFA has been marked by his criminal referrals for mortgage fraud against Trump's political foes, including New York Attorney General Letitia James and Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook, whom the president has been trying to fire in an effort to stack the US central bank with political loyalists.
James was targeted for prosecution after she won a $450 million judgment against the president and his business in a civil fraud case.
Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.), vice chairperson of the Senate Committee on Intelligence, delivered a scathing response to Trump's announcement.
"This appointment speaks volumes about what this president expects from the nation's top intelligence official," he said. "Rather than selecting a respected national security professional capable of delivering independent judgments, the president has chosen an official who has demonstrated not just willingness but eagerness to use the authorities of government to pursue political retribution."
Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto (D-Nev.) also denounced the president's decision.
"Bill Pulte led Donald Trump’s efforts to charge and jail his political enemies, now he’s being rewarded with a job he has no business doing," Cortez Masto said. "Putting Pulte at the helm of the intelligence community risks American lives just so Trump can keep going after his political opponents."
Sean Vitka, executive director of Demand Progress, argued that Pulte's appointment was yet another reason for Democrats to oppose further extension of warrantless spying powers under Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA).
"Congress must not sign away unchecked spying powers to the government," said Vitka, "when Donald Trump’s top spy is a man whose primary qualification is his willingness to weaponize sensitive information held by the government against the president’s political enemies."
Vitka specifically urged Warner to change course on his push to renew Section 702, particularly in light of Pulte's appointment.
"By supporting a FISA extension without any independent checks like warrant protections, Sen. Warner is putting the entire country at serious risk and enabling perhaps the greatest threat to American democracy we have seen in modern history," he said.
Journalist James Surowiecki expressed horror at Pulte's elevation to acting DNI.
"Even for Trump, this is nuts," Surowiecki wrote. "Bill Pulte, who's a [private equity] guy/real-estate developer with exactly zero intelligence experience, is going to be the new Director of National Intelligence—while also continuing to run FHFA and Fannie Mae/Fredde Mac!"
Don Moynihan, a professor of public policy at the University of Michigan, issued a dire warning about Pulte potentially abusing US intelligence services to target Trump opponents.
"Fuck me, this is Bill Pulte," Moynihan wrote. "The guy who was using mortgage data to launch DOJ investigations against Lisa Cook, Letitia James, and [US Sen.] Adam Schiff (D-Calif.). He is being put in charge of national intelligence because of his track record of being willing to manufacture false allegations to target Trump's enemies."
Political commentator Keith Boykin described Pulte as Trump's "personal henchman" who "abused his position as chairman of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to send baseless criminal referrals against Letitia James and Lisa Cook."
National security attorney Bradley Moss, meanwhile, could not hide his disgust at Pulte's appointment in an all-caps social media post.
"WHAT THE... I QUIT," Moss wrote. "I GIVE UP. BILL PULTE??"
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Decades in the Making': Antitrust Advocates Celebrate as Jury Rules Against Live Nation-Ticketmaster
Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison called the verdict "a win for everyone who thinks concert tickets are too damn expensive."
Apr 15, 2026
Antitrust advocates celebrated on Wednesday after a jury found that Live Nation and is subsidiary Ticketmaster were illegal monopolies who for decades systematically overcharged customers for concert tickets.
As reported by The Associated Press, the verdict against Live Nation and Ticketmaster could cost the two entities "hundreds of millions of dollars, just for the $1.72 per ticket that the jury found Ticketmaster had overcharged consumers in 22 states," and they could be forced to sell off some of the venues they own.
The case against Live Nation, which was brought by 33 states and the District of Columbia, was initially led by the US Department of Justice. However, under President Donald Trump, the DOJ last month reached a last-minute settlement with the company that would not require it to be broken up.
The state attorneys general, however, vowed to see the case through and were rewarded with a big verdict in their favor.
New York Attorney General Letitia James celebrated the verdict, describing it as "a landmark victory to protect New Yorkers from harmful monopolies."
Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison called the verdict "a win for everyone who thinks concert tickets are too damn expensive," and declared himself "proud to have brought this lawsuit."
District of Columbia Attorney General Brian Schwalb noted Live Nation "has raked in billions in profits from an illegal monopoly that coerces venues, restricts artists, and exploits fans," and called the verdict "a massive win in the fight for fairness for local venues, artists, and fans."
Lina Khan, former chair of the Federal Trade Commission under President Joe Biden, hailed the verdict, but said it was just "a key first step towards ending Live Nation’s monopolistic control and securing real relief for those it harmed."
Lee Hepner, senior legal counsel at the American Economic Liberties Project, said the verdict was "decades in the making," and he cited iconic Seattle band Pearl Jam's fight against Ticketmaster in the 1990s to illustrate just how long it's taken to hold the company accountable.
"Pour one out for Pearl Jam, who testified before Congress in 1993 about Ticketmaster's abuse of the live concert industry," he commented.
The Roosevelt Institute took a shot at the Trump DOJ for bailing on the case, and noted the verdict against Live Nation "only happened because state AGs kept pushing after a federal settlement that let the companies off the hook."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Mamdani Inauguration Set for Site Befitting Public Transit Champion
Fellow democratic socialists Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Bernie Sanders will feature prominently in the swearing-in of New York City's next mayor.
Dec 30, 2025
Democratic New York City Mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani's inauguration Thursday will feature luminaries of the left including US Sen. Bernie Sanders and Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who will gather to swear in the democratic socialist in a location befitting a candidate who ran on a transit-forward platform.
Mamdani will be officially sworn by Democratic New York Attorney General Letitia James during a private ceremony attended by members of his family in the abandoned—but well-preserved—Old City Hall subway station, Streetsblog first reported.
"When Old City Hall Station first opened in 1904—one of New York’s 28 original subway stations—it was a physical monument to a city that dared to be both beautiful and build great things that would transform working peoples’ lives," Mamdani said in a statement.
"That ambition need not be a memory confined only to our past, nor must it be isolated only to the tunnels beneath City Hall: It will be the purpose of the administration fortunate enough to serve New Yorkers from the building above," he added.
Mamdan ran on a platform of fare-free city buses—to be funded by tax hikes on corporations and wealthy individuals—improved public transit performance, sustainability and emissions reduction, technology-enhanced mobility, and multimodal integration.
"When I take my oath from the station at the dawn of the New Year, I will do so humbled by the opportunity to lead millions of New Yorkers into a new era of opportunity, and honored to carry forward our city’s legacy of greatness," Mamdani said.
Mamdani is set to be ceremoniously sworn in at a 1:00 pm public event at City Hall alongside incoming Comptroller Mark Levine and reelected Public Advocate Jumaane Williams, both Democrats. CNN reported Tuesday that Mamdani will be introduced by Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY).
“For the many New Yorkers who have long felt betrayed by a broken status quo, Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez embodies a new kind of politics that puts working people at the heart of it,” Mamdani said in a statement.
“I’ve been so proud to count her as a partner across the many stages of our people-powered movement—from the primary campaign to our Forest Hills rally in October to the very first day of the transition—and I’m honored that she’ll be a part of our historic City Hall inauguration," he added.
Sanders (I-Vt.) will subsequently administer the oath of office to Mamdani.
“His victory is not just about one city or one election, it is about the strength of a working-class movement that says unequivocally: The future of New York belongs to the people, not the billionaire class," Sanders said last week of Mamdani. "It is my honor to swear him in as the next mayor of New York City.”
Streetsblog reported that the ceremonial inauguration will take place alongside a car-free block party on Broadway.
While Republicans—and plenty of so-called "moderate" Democrats—are unnerved by the prospect of Mamdani's mayordom, a recent Rasmussen survey found that a majority of all US voters under the age of 40 want a democratic socialist to be the next president of the United States.
"A significant majority of Americans are sick of the neoliberal 'let the rich run things because they know best' bullshit that Republicans, 'tech bros,' and a shrinking minority of on-the-take Democratic politicians embrace," frequent Common Dreams opinion contributor Thom Hartmann wrote last week.
"The exploding popularity of progressive politicians from Zorhan Mamdani to Bernie Sanders, [Democratic Texas Congresswoman] Jasmine Crockett, and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez aren’t an anomaly," he added, "they’re a signpost to both electoral and governing success for the next generation of genuinely progressive Democratic politicians."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Victory for Everyone Who Pays an Electricity Bill': Judge Tosses Trump Ban on New Wind Energy Projects
"Get out of the way of the expansion of renewable energy," one clean power advocate told the Trump administration.
Dec 09, 2025
Clean energy advocates have scored at least a temporary victory after a federal judge on Monday threw out President Donald Trump's executive order that banned new wind power projects in the US.
As reported by CNBC, Judge Patti Saris of the US District Court for the District of Massachusetts tossed Trump's executive order in its entirety after finding it "arbitrary and capricious and contrary to law," and arguing that the federal government did not provide a reasoned explanation for enacting such a policy.
The executive order, which Trump signed in January, halted all permits and leases for both offshore and onshore wind power projects.
A group of 17 states, led by New York Attorney General Letitia James, sued the Trump administration earlier this year to overturn the executive order, which they labeled "an existential threat to the wind industry" in the US.
In a social media post, James hailed the judge's ruling and called the decision "a big victory in our fight to keep tackling the climate crisis and protect one of our best sources of clean, reliable, and affordable energy."
Nancy Pyne, senior adviser for Sierra Club, declared the ruling "a victory for everyone who pays an electricity bill, is part of the clean energy workforce, and breathes air."
"Americans need cheaper and more reliable energy that does not come at the expense of our health and futures," Pyne added. "We are glad to see this illegal order get vacated, and we will continue to advocate for more wind energy projects across the country to lower the cost of energy and create stable, union jobs in our communities."
Kit Kennedy, managing director for power at Natural Resources Defense Council, also emphasized the benefits to US consumers of allowing more wind-power projects to move forward.
"From the beginning of its time in office, the Trump administration put a halt to the wind energy projects that are needed to keep utility bills in check and the grid reliable," Kennedy said. "In the months since, this action has been a devastating blow to workers, electricity customers, and the reliability of the power grid."
Kennedy added that the Trump administration should accept the judge's verdict and "get out of the way of the expansion of renewable energy."
The Trump administration has the option to appeal the judge's order, although it did not respond to questions from the New York Times on Monday about whether it had plans to do so.
Trump's war against wind power comes at a time when rising electric bills, caused in large part by increased demand from energy-devouring artificial intelligence data centers, have become a hot-button political issue.
A recent report from researchers at The Century Foundation and financial abuse watchdog Protect Borrowers found that the average overdue balance on utility bills has surged by 32% over the last three years, going from $597 in 2022 to $789 in 2025. The report also estimated that roughly 1 out of every 20 US households has utility debt that is “so severe it was sent to collections or in arrears."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Records Shows That Trump, By His Own Definition, Is Guilty of Mortgage Fraud
“Given Trump’s position on situations like this, he’s going to either need to fire himself or refer himself to the Department of Justice,” said one mortgage law expert.
Dec 08, 2025
As US President Donald Trump targets political opponents with dubious allegations of mortgage fraud, an investigation published Monday revealed the Republican leader once did the same thing as a senior official he is trying to fire.
In an August letter, Trump announced his termination of Federal Reserve Gov. Lisa Cook—an appointee of former President Joe Biden—for alleged fraud, accusing her of signing two primary residence mortgages within weeks of each other.
Cook, who denies any wrongdoing, has not been charged with any crime and has filed a lawsuit challenging Trump's attempt to fire her. In October, the US Supreme Court declined to immediately remove Cook and agreed to hear oral arguments on the case in January.
Trump called Cook's actions "deceitful and potentially criminal." However, ProPublica reviewed records showing that Trump "did the very thing he’s accusing his enemies of."
Trump committed mortgage fraud, according to Trump.Somehow I doubt his DOJ will go after him the way he instructed his DOJ to go after his political enemies over this.Every Republican accusation is a confession.
[image or embed]
— Melanie D’Arrigo (@darrigomelanie.bsky.social) December 8, 2025 at 5:47 AM
According to the publication:
In 1993, Trump signed a mortgage for a “Bermuda style” home in Palm Beach, Florida, pledging that it would be his principal residence. Just seven weeks later, he got another mortgage for a seven-bedroom, marble-floored neighboring property, attesting that it too would be his principal residence.
In reality, Trump, then a New Yorker, does not appear to have ever lived in either home, let alone used them as a principal residence. Instead, the two houses, which are next to his historic Mar-a-Lago estate, were used as investment properties and rented out, according to contemporaneous news accounts and an interview with his longtime real estate agent—exactly the sort of scenario his administration has pointed to as evidence of fraud...
Mortgage law experts who reviewed the records for ProPublica were struck by the irony of Trump’s dual mortgages. They said claiming primary residences on different mortgages at the same time, as Trump did, is often legal and rarely prosecuted. But Trump’s two loans, they said, exceed the low bar the Trump administration itself has set for mortgage fraud.
"Given Trump’s position on situations like this, he’s going to either need to fire himself or refer himself to the Department of Justice,” Kathleen Engel, a Suffolk University law professor and leading expert on mortgage finance, told ProPublica. “Trump has deemed that this type of misrepresentation is sufficient to preclude someone from serving the country.”
Lisa Gilbert, co-president of the consumer advocacy group Public Citizen, responded to ProPublica's analysis in a statement slamming "Trump's mortgage fraud witch hunt."
"The cruel and lawless hypocrisy of Donald Trump using the levers of government to dig up so-called mortgage fraud on his perceived political opponents, while doing the very same, is blatant," Gilbert said in a statement.
A federal judge recently dismissed the US Department of Justice's (DOJ) criminal case against Democratic New York Attorney General Letitia James, who was charged with bank fraud and false statements regarding a property in Virginia. Critics called the charges against James—who successfully prosecuted Trump for financial crimes—baseless and politically motivated. A federal grand jury subsequently rejected another administration attempt to indict James.
“The administration has used the idea of claiming a home as your primary residence without residing there to justify DOJ takedowns of Lisa Cook, Tish James, and more," Gilbert added. "If this is how they really feel, and the ProPublica reporting is accurate, then Donald Trump should be next in the DOJ crosshairs.”
ProPublica said that Trump hung up on one of its reporters who asked about similarities between his Florida mortgages and those of people targeted by his administration.
“President Trump’s two mortgages you are referencing are from the same lender," a White House spokesperson subsequently told the outlet. "There was no defraudation. It is illogical to believe that the same lender would agree to defraud itself.”
“President Trump has never, or will ever, break the law," the spokesperson falsely added.
Trump has accused other political foes, including US Sen. Adam Schiff and Rep. Eric Swalwell—both California Democrats who played key roles in both of the president's House impeachments—of similar fraud. Swalwell is currently under formal criminal investigation. Both lawmakers deny the allegations.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Federal Judge Tosses Comey, James Cases Over 'Unlawful' Appointment of Trump Prosecutor
"This case was not about justice or the law; it was about targeting Attorney General James for what she stood for and who she challenged," said Letitia James' lawyer.
Nov 24, 2025
A federal judge on Monday threw out criminal cases against former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James, ruling that President Donald Trump's handpicked prosecutor was illegally installed.
Judge Cameron McGowan Currie, a Clinton appointee, wrote in her Monday orders that former White House official Lindsey Halligan "has been unlawfully serving" as interim US attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia and that "all actions flowing" from her appointment "constitute unlawful exercises of executive power and must be set aside."
Halligan is a Trump loyalist with no prior experience as a prosecutor—something that quickly became apparent as she made glaring mistakes in pursuit of charges against Comey and James, frequent targets of the president's ire. The charges against Comey and James were widely seen as flimsy and politically motivated.
Halligan was installed in late September, just two days after Trump fired off a since-deleted social media post complaining about the lack of action against Comey and James. Currie highlighted the post in her order.
"Lindsey Halligan is a really good lawyer, and likes you, a lot," Trump wrote, directing his message at Attorney General Pam Bondi. "We can’t delay any longer, it’s killing our reputation and credibility."
Halligan's predecessor, Erik Siebert, resigned under pressure from the Trump administration for declining to seek indictments against Comey and James. Siebert privately voiced concern that there wasn't enough evidence to pursue charges.
Currie ruled that Halligan's Trump-directed appointment violated 28 US Code § 546 and the Appointments Clause of the Constitution. The Comey and James cases were dismissed without prejudice, meaning the Trump administration could try to install a new prosecutor to revive the charges—though the statute of limitations in Comey's case expired at the end of September.
Democracy Docket notes that Halligan "is the fourth Trump-appointed acting US attorney deemed to be serving unlawfully."
James, who brought a civil suit against Trump in 2022 for "fraudulent and misleading asset valuations," said Monday that she was "heartened by today’s victory and grateful for the prayers and support I have received from around the country."
"I remain fearless in the face of these baseless charges as I continue fighting for New Yorkers every single day," James added.
Abbe David Lowell, James' attorney, said Monday that "this case was not about justice or the law; it was about targeting Attorney General James for what she stood for and who she challenged."
"We will continue to challenge any further politically motivated charges through every lawful means available," said Lowell.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Federal Judge Says Trump's Handpicked Attorney May Have 'Tainted' Case Against Comey With False Statements
"I have never seen a more scathing opinion, with this many errors, in any criminal case I have ever covered," said one legal reporter.
Nov 17, 2025
The attorney handpicked to prosecute President Donald Trump's enemies may have "tainted the grand jury proceedings" against former FBI Director James Comey by making multiple false statements, said a federal judge Monday.
In a 24-page ruling, Federal Magistrate Judge William E. Fitzpatrick said that the Department of Justice (DOJ) engaged in a “disturbing pattern of profound investigative missteps” when moving to secure the indictment of the former FBI director in September, following a direct order from Trump to Attorney General Pam Bondi.
As a result, Fitzpatrick granted what he called an "extraordinary remedy," requiring all grand jury materials in the case, including audio recordings of the grand jury proceedings, to be made available to the defense. Typically, information from a grand jury indictment is kept secret until it is revealed at trial. But Fitzpatrick said the "unique circumstances" made it necessary to release it "to fully protect the rights of the accused."
The most glaring of these missteps were made by Lindsey Halligan, the interim US attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia. Despite being a former insurance lawyer who'd never prosecuted a criminal case, she singlehandedly brought the indictment before the grand jury, which accused Comey of lying to the Senate Judiciary Committee in 2020 about whether he authorized someone at the FBI to serve as an anonymous source in news reports regarding the bureau's investigation of Hillary Clinton.
Despite her lack of experience, Halligan—a former contestant in one of Trump's beauty pageants—was plucked from obscurity to serve as the interim US attorney for Comey's home district after Trump pushed out her predecessor, who refused to bring charges against Comey due to lack of evidence.
Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James, another of Trump's enemies who Halligan has brought charges against, last week successfully got a different judge to hear their argument that Halligan was unlawfully appointed to her position.
Fitzpatrick said his decision to open up grand jury materials in the Comey case came in part because of two "fundamental misstatements of the law" made by Halligan, that he said "could compromise the integrity of the grand jury process" and potentially rise to the level of "misconduct."
Halligan asserted that Comey did not have the Fifth Amendment right not to testify, which Fitzpatrick wrote “ignores the foundational rule of law that if Mr. Comey exercised his right not to testify, the jury could draw no negative inference from that decision."
He also said that a separate statement made by Halligan, which remains redacted, "may have reasonably set an expectation in the minds of the grand jurors that rather than the government bear the burden to prove Mr. Comey's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt at trial, the burden shifts to Mr. Comey to explain away the government's evidence."
Fitzpatrick said the prosecutor also made the highly unusual argument that the grand jury did not have to rely solely on evidence presented in the government's indictment—which was a measly page-and-a-half long—to determine probable cause. Instead, Fitzpatrick said, Halligan suggested the jury "could be assured the government had more evidence–perhaps better evidence–that would be presented at trial."
That interpretation aligns with the criticism Fitzpatrick voiced at a hearing earlier this month, calling out the Trump DOJ's “indict first, investigate later” approach to these political prosecutions.
Fitzpatrick further suggested that Halligan and the DOJ violated the Fourth Amendment by relying on evidence sourced from FBI search warrants executed in 2019 and 2020 during a separate case against one of Comey's former attorneys, Daniel Richman, whom the indictment alleged was the source Comey authorized to speak to the media.
"Under long-standing Fourth Amendment precedent," Fitzpatrick wrote, "the government may search for and seize only those materials expressly authorized by the terms of a search warrant issued in connection with specific predicate offenses."
Fitzpatrick also wrote that an FBI agent called to testify before the grand jury may have exposed information subject to attorney-client privilege between Comey and Richman, which he called a "highly irregular and a radical departure from past DOJ practice."
"I have never seen a more scathing opinion, with this many errors, in any criminal case I have ever covered," said Sarah Lynch, who covers the DOJ for Reuters.
The order may result in the case being thrown out of court entirely before even getting to trial, and the DOJ would be unable to bring it again, with or without prejudice, as the statute of limitations has expired.
If it is found that Halligan was improperly appointed to her position, the case would also fall apart since she was the only attorney who signed the indictment, though Bondi has retroactively claimed she reviewed the document even though she never signed it. It would also potentially derail the case against James.
MSNBC legal analyst Glenn Kirschner said that "given today’s ruling... it’s becoming increasingly difficult to see how the indictment does not get dismissed."
Keep ReadingShow Less
See More Stories
Most Popular
To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good.
News & Opinion
Trending
Common Dreams, Inc. Founded 1997. Registered 501(c3) Non-Profit
Privacy Policy