💥 SHOCKING MELTDOWN: TRUMP DOJ IN COMPLETE COLLAPSE — TOP PROSECUTORS OUSTED, SECRET COURT BATTLES ERUPT, AND INSIDERS SAY “THE REAL STORY HASN’T EVEN DROPPED YET” ⚡

WASHINGTON — A wave of federal court rulings has thrown into disarray several high-profile criminal investigations initiated under former President Donald J. Trump, as judges across multiple jurisdictions conclude that a number of his acting and interim U.S. attorneys were improperly appointed. The decisions have cast significant doubt on the viability of ongoing prosecutions involving figures such as former FBI Director James B. Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James.

In recent weeks, federal courts in Virginia, New Jersey and New York have separately ruled that Trump-installed prosecutors — Alina Habba in New Jersey, Lindsey Halligan in Virginia, and John Sarone in the Northern District of New York — lacked legal authority to serve in their roles. The findings have upended indictments, triggered new procedural challenges and prompted concerns about the integrity of cases launched under their leadership.

A Series of Judicial Rebukes

The most consequential ruling so far came in the Eastern District of Virginia, where Judge Elizabeth Curry dismissed indictments against Mr. Comey and Ms. James without prejudice, finding that Lindsey Halligan had been unlawfully appointed under Section 546 of the U.S. Code. Halligan, who had never previously served as a federal prosecutor, was appointed as interim U.S. attorney after Trump had already exhausted his statutory opportunity to name a candidate for the role.

Judge Curry ruled that because the position had previously been filled under the interim appointment provision, subsequent vacancies could only be addressed by the district court’s judges — not the White House. As a result, Halligan “lacked lawful authority to present matters to the grand jury,” invalidating the indictments she obtained.

Legal experts say that although the dismissals were issued without prejudice — allowing prosecutors to seek new charges — the defects may pose significant obstacles for any future case.

Federal officials have since confirmed that new grand juries in Norfolk and Alexandria are reviewing evidence related to both targets and may seek fresh indictments. Any renewed prosecution, however, would fall to Halligan’s recently appointed deputy, a veteran former federal attorney brought out of retirement to stabilize the office.

Statute of Limitations Complication in Comey Case

The legal path forward in the Comey matter is particularly fraught. Judge Curry found that because Halligan’s actions were void, the original indictment did not toll the statute of limitations for potential charges related to Comey’s 2020 congressional testimony — an offense carrying a two-year limitations period that expired on September 5.

Justice Department officials have privately signaled that any reinvigorated case would likely rely on alternate theories unrelated to Comey’s testimony, though it remains unclear what those charges might entail.

Complicating matters further, a magistrate judge in Washington recently found that investigators had violated the Fourth Amendment rights of Daniel Richman, a Columbia Law School professor and longtime Comey confidant. Federal agents had reviewed a cache of privileged and personal material seized years earlier in connection with unrelated inquiries. If that evidence is excluded — as Richman has now formally requested — prosecutors may lose access to a central trove of documents.

Third Circuit Blocks Habba Appointment

The most sweeping appellate ruling so far came from the Third Circuit, which unanimously held that Alina Habba — appointed acting U.S. attorney for New Jersey — could not legally serve in that position. The court found that the Vacancy Reform Act requires the “first assistant” in an office to assume the role when a vacancy occurs, and that an official cannot appoint herself as her own first assistant to circumvent statutory requirements.

The ruling not only nullified Habba’s actions in New Jersey but also established the first appellate-level precedent on the limits of the Vacancy Reform Act — a development that is already shaping litigation elsewhere.

Parallel Challenges in New York

A similar challenge is advancing in Manhattan, where Judge Katherine Friedrich is reviewing claims that John Sarone, who initiated a federal civil-rights probe into Attorney General James, was improperly appointed under the same statutory theory that invalidated Habba’s tenure. Although the case arises from the Northern District of New York, it was transferred to Manhattan to avoid conflicts arising from potential local judicial involvement in selecting a replacement.

While the Third Circuit’s ruling is not binding on courts in New York, legal analysts note that it remains the only appellate decision interpreting the issues at stake and is likely to carry significant persuasive weight.

A Broader Strategy Under Scrutiny

Collectively, the rulings represent a pronounced setback for Trump’s Justice Department, which repeatedly appointed political allies to senior prosecutorial roles despite lacking Senate confirmation prospects. Critics argue that the strategy allowed Trump to pursue investigations against perceived adversaries while bypassing institutional guardrails meant to ensure prosecutorial independence.

Although new grand juries may soon revisit some of the dismissed matters, defense lawyers are preparing renewed constitutional challenges, asserting that the underlying investigations represent vindictive or politically motivated prosecutions.

Many of the cases, legal observers say, are likely to reach the Supreme Court — potentially testing the limits of executive authority over federal prosecutors and the future of the Vacancy Reform Act itself.