Former FBI Director James Comey and his lawyers returned to federal court on November 19, 2025, in a bid to dismiss a two-count indictment they say was driven by politically motivated, “vindictive and selective” prosecution. The charges stem from testimony Comey gave to the Senate Judiciary Committee more than five years earlier; he has pleaded not guilty. Defense filings allege the indictment was pushed by former President Trump and timed to arrive just before a five-year statute-of-limitations deadline, while prosecutors say the charges reflect legitimate concerns about alleged false testimony and obstruction. The judge hearing the motions temporarily paused a magistrate’s extraordinary order to release grand jury material while the Justice Department appeals.
- Two-count federal indictment: Comey faces two charges tied to testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee and has pleaded not guilty.
- Hearing date and filing: Defense asked for dismissal on November 19, 2025, arguing vindictive and selective motives; the indictment was returned in late September 2025.
- Timing flagged by defense: The indictment was filed days before a five-year statute-of-limitations deadline, according to court papers.
- Appointment scrutiny: Defense emphasizes that Lindsey Halligan, a White House aide and former insurance lawyer, was installed as interim U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia and sought the indictment.
- Grand jury materials: A magistrate judge ordered full grand jury disclosure citing investigative concerns; the order is temporarily stayed while DOJ appeals.
- Legal burden high: Defendants must prove ‘genuine animus’ for vindictive prosecution and discriminatory purpose or disparate treatment for selective prosecution.
- Public figures and prior conduct: Prosecutors note other senior officials have been charged for false testimony and emphasize Comey’s alleged misconduct while FBI Director.
Background
James Comey served as FBI Director until his May 2017 termination; since then he has been a prominent critic of former President Donald Trump. Their public dispute has included repeated social-media attacks and public statements, which Comey’s lawyers cite as evidence of personal animus. The current indictment arises from testimony Comey gave more than five years ago to the Senate Judiciary Committee and was returned in late September 2025. The timing and the personnel involved in bringing the case—most notably the appointment of Lindsey Halligan as interim U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia—are central to defense claims of improper motive.
Vindictive and selective prosecution claims are rare and legally demanding. Courts require proof that a prosecutor acted with retaliatory intent or that similarly situated people were not prosecuted for comparable conduct. Historically, those standards protect defendants who exercised constitutional rights or who were targeted for unconstitutional reasons, but they are difficult to prove without direct evidence tying decision-makers to discriminatory motive. The defense has compiled social-media posts and public statements by Mr. Trump dating back to 2017 to show a sustained pattern of hostility. Prosecutors counter that the indictment was the product of a properly constituted grand jury and reflected Comey’s alleged false statements and obstruction.
Main Event
On November 19, 2025, Comey’s lawyers argued in federal court that the indictment should be dismissed with prejudice because it was the product of vindictive and selective prosecution. They contended the charges were driven by President Trump’s personal animus and that the appointment of Lindsey Halligan as interim U.S. attorney was an unlawful mechanism to secure charges against a political adversary. Defense filings cited nearly 60 pages of social-media posts by the former president as evidence of sustained hostility toward Comey.
The Justice Department responded that Comey’s filings rely on media accounts and speculation that do not meet the legal standard for dismissal. Prosecutors noted that long-standing DOJ practice permits prosecution when a public official allegedly lies to Congress, and they argued that grand jury proceedings established probable cause. DOJ lawyers also stressed there is no direct evidence that Halligan herself harbored animus toward Comey or that the president displaced her as the operative decision-maker.
The case has already produced an unusual procedural development: a federal magistrate judge ordered prosecutors to turn over all grand jury materials to the defense, citing what the magistrate described as a ‘‘disturbing pattern of profound investigative missteps.’’ That order was called extraordinary and has been paused temporarily by U.S. District Judge Michael Nachmanoff while the Justice Department appeals. The magistrate’s findings raised questions about how evidence was handled in the grand jury presentation and about Halligan’s conduct before the grand jury.
Analysis & Implications
Legally, dismissing an indictment on vindictive or selective grounds is a steep climb for defendants. For vindictiveness, courts require evidence of punitive intent tied to the defendant’s exercise of a protected right, such as public speech. For selective prosecution, defendants must show discriminatory effect and purpose—often by identifying similarly situated individuals who were not prosecuted. Comey’s team is attempting to meet these burdens by pointing to the timing of the indictment, the personnel decisions that preceded it, and public statements by President Trump.
Politically, the case deepens tensions between the Justice Department’s independence and presidential influence over law-enforcement appointments. The defense narrative—that the president directed DOJ action and installed an interim prosecutor to bring the case—if accepted by a court, would be consequential for norms governing temporary appointments and political interference. Even if courts reject the defense motions, the litigation and publicity could shape public perceptions of DOJ impartiality ahead of any trial.
Practically, the magistrate’s order to disclose grand jury materials, though stayed, signals potential procedural vulnerabilities for prosecutors. If appellate judges ultimately require disclosure or identify flaws in how the grand jury was presented with evidence, prosecutors could face significant hurdles at trial or risk having the case dismissed. Conversely, if appellate courts uphold the integrity of the grand jury proceedings, prosecutors will have taken an important early legal victory.
Comparison & Data
| Issue | Vindictive Prosecution | Selective Prosecution |
|---|---|---|
| Legal standard | Proof of punitive intent for protected conduct | Discriminatory effect plus discriminatory purpose |
| Typical evidence | Direct statements, timing, pattern of retaliation | Comparative statistics, similarly situated cases not prosecuted |
| Defense burden | High | High |
The table outlines the distinct legal thresholds the defense must meet. In this case, the defense emphasizes timing, personnel moves, and documented public attacks as their principal evidence of motive. Prosecutors counter primarily with the substance of the alleged misconduct and the grand jury’s probable-cause finding.
Reactions & Quotes
Defense attorneys framed the motion as an effort to defend constitutional rights and to prevent a politically motivated prosecution. They argued that without dismissal with prejudice, Mr. Comey could face a perpetual state of vulnerability to politically driven charges.
The charges are the result of an egregious abuse of power and multiple glaring constitutional violations.
Comey defense filing
Justice Department lawyers rejected the characterization of political interference and emphasized that the indictment rests on alleged false testimony to Congress, a prosecutable offense irrespective of later political criticism.
Allowing the defendant to escape accountability for lying to and obstructing Congress would be the true affront to the criminal justice system.
Justice Department filing
Outside observers have been divided: some constitutional-law scholars say the case raises novel separation-of-powers questions; others note how rarely courts grant dismissals on selective or vindictive grounds.
These motions raise important questions about appointment practices and prosecutorial independence, but courts set a high bar for dismissal.
Constitutional law scholar (statement)
Unconfirmed
- Whether President Trump personally directed Halligan to seek the indictment remains unproven in the public record and is a central factual dispute.
- Whether the alleged grand jury procedural flaws will be deemed sufficient to require dismissal has not been resolved; the Eleventh Circuit appeal is pending.
- The extent to which the social-media posts cited by the defense can be admitted as proof of prosecutorial motive has not been finally decided.
Bottom Line
The court fight over Comey’s two-count indictment is as much about legal thresholds as it is about public confidence in impartial prosecution. The defense faces a demanding legal path to show vindictive or selective motives, relying on timing, appointment choices, and a record of public attacks to make its case. Prosecutors maintain the indictment rests on alleged false testimony and a grand jury’s probable-cause finding, and they have pushed back against claims of political manipulation.
Procedural developments—the magistrate judge’s order and the temporary stay—are likely to shape the case’s trajectory. If appellate courts find serious procedural errors in the grand jury process or in the appointment that produced the indictment, prosecutors could suffer significant setbacks; if not, the case will proceed to trial, where the evidentiary record and competing narratives will be tested before a jury.
Sources
- CBS News — news report