SC federal Judge Currie dismisses indictments of Trump’s political foes

Federal Judge Cameron McGowan Currie of South Carolina, who Monday dismissed indictments that President Donald Trump had sought against two people Trump called “guilty as hell,” is no stranger to high profile cases.

Currie is currently presiding in the child sex abuse materials case in which ex-Rep. R.J. May III, a Lexington County Republican, is scheduled to be sentenced in January. In 2019, she sentenced former 5th Circuit Court Solicitor Dan Johnson, a Democrat, to prison for stealing tax dollars.

In 2013, she presided over the racketeering trials of more than a dozen Hell’s Angels members in the York County area . In 2012, she handled cases against South Carolina cockfighting operators whose Midlands gambling ring was infiltrated by an undercover agent.

In 1989, Currie joined the State Attorney General’s office, becoming the first prosecutor of a newly-created state grand jury. At its beginning, the state grand jury could only investigate drug and pornography cases. But because of its initial successes, the Legislature over time passed laws giving it power to prosecute numerous crimes, including public corruption, criminal gangs, human trafficking, environmental and computer crimes, election fraud and money laundering.

Currie vaulted to national prominence Monday when she ruled the Trump Department of Justice’s recent indictments of former FBI director James Comey and current New York State Attorney General Letitia James were invalid.

Currie’s ruling

Currie wrote that an interim prosecutor, Lindsey Halligan, who had no prosecutorial experience, had been improperly appointed as interim U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia and, therefore, the indictments of Comey and James that she secured from a federal grand jury were invalid.

“Ms. Halligan has been unlawfully serving in that role since September 22, 2025,” Currie wrote in her opinion. “I conclude that all actions flowing from Ms. Halligan’s defective appointment, including securing and signing Ms. James’s indictment, constitute unlawful exercises of executive power and must be set aside.”

Halligan’s predecessor, Erik S. Siebert, a longtime Justice Department attorney, had been forced out over his decision not to move forward with cases against Comey and James, according to news accounts.

Siebert had been appointed Interim U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia last January after Trump took office. When Siebert left office in September, Attorney General Pam Bondi appointed Lindsey Halligan to be the new Interim U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia.

Neither Halligan’s lack of experience nor her obvious political appointment was at issue in Currie’s decision.

Rather, the issue was whether Bondi’s appointment of Halligan to be Interim U.S. Attorney was lawful under the U.S. Constitution and relevant Congressional laws.

In examining the Constitution, Congressional acts and numerous court decisions, Currie ruled that Halligan’s appointment to be U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia violated the Constitution because successive appointments to the post of interim U.S. Attorney must be done by judges from that district.

Having the judges make the decision of who will be temporary, or interim, U.S. Attorney instead of the Attorney General removes politics from the equation. “Ensuring that powerful prosecutors are lawfully appointed is an essential check on the executive,” a Washington Post opinion writer wrote.

Currie had been appointed as a special judge from outside of Virginia in the Comey and James cases by Albert Diaz, chief judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit to hear cases in which challenges of Halligan’s appointment might be an issue.

The Fourth Circuit includes the court districts of Virginia, West Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Maryland.

Trump had made no secret of his wanting the Justice Department to do his bidding in securing indictments against Comey and James, both of whom had targeted Trump in investigations.

Last Sept. 20, Trump posted and then deleted on social media a message to his Attorney General, Pam Bondi, to pursue charges against Comey and James, according to Currie’s Monday order.

“Pam: I have reviewed over 30 statements and posts saying that, essentially, ‘same old story as last time, all talk, no action. Nothing is being done. What about Comey, (California Sen.) Adam ‘Shifty’ Schiff, Leticia??? They’re all guilty as hell, but nothing is going to be done,” Trump wrote with offering any evidence.

In Trump’s posting, Currie noted in her opinion, he suggested that Bondi appoint Halligan. “Lindsey Halligan is a really good lawyer, and likes you, a lot,” Trump wrote.

Less than 48 hours later, on Sept. 22, Bondi appointed Halligan, a former White House aide and insurance lawyer, to be Interim U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, Currie’s opinion noted.

On Sept. 25, Halligan secured an indictment against Comey, charging him with making false statements to Congress.

“Ms. Halligan was the only prosecutor who participated in the Government’s presentation to the grand jury, and only her signature appears on Mr. Comey’s indictment,” Currie wrote.

Among the numerous authorities cited in her 29-page decision, Currie included such conservative judicial icons as Supreme Court justices Samuel Alito, the late Antonin Scalia and U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon of the Southern District of Florida, who dismissed a criminal case involving missing classified documents against Trump because of an improperly appointed prosecutor.

“The power to appoint an interim U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia ... lies with the District Court until a U.S. Attorney is nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate,” Currie wrote.

In her decision, Currie dismissed the indictments against Comey and James “without prejudice,” meaning the Justice Department could try to refile the indictments.

Bondi told a news conference on Monday that the Justice Department would take “all available legal action, including an immediate appeal.”

Currie’s background

According to the Federal Judicial Center, Currie was born in Florence County in 1948.

A 1970 graduate of the University of South Carolina, Currie graduated from the George Washington University Law School in 1975.

From 1978 to 1984, she was an assistant U.S. Attorney, first in the District of Columbia and then in South Carolina. In 1984, she became a federal magistrate in South Carolina. She then became chief deputy attorney general for South Carolina from 1989 to 1994.

In 1994, former President William Clinton nominated her to be a federal judge in South Carolina to a seat vacated by Falcon B. Hawkins. She was confirmed by the Senate in March 1994 and began serving as a judge shortly afterward.

Along with high profile criminal cases, Currie has presided over controversial civil cases with political overtones.

In 2023, Currie ruled that the far-right S.C. House Freedom Caucus had the same rights as other House caucuses to raise money for political and campaign causes.

In 2009, Currie struck down a Christian-themed license plate that had been approved by the state legislature. The license plate had the words “I believe” and a cross in front of a stained glass window, words and images that Currie said amounted to a state endorsement of a specific religion, which she said was prohibited by the state constitution.

Bill Nettles, a former U.S. Attorney for South Carolina, said Currie’s Monday ruling was a sign that the rule of law in America is being followed.

Currie is a “very private person” who is widely respected by her attention to detail and her knowledge of judicial procedures, said a person acquainted with her professional life.

In court, she rarely smiles and speaks in quiet but authoritative tones, leaving no doubt who is in charge.

Bart Daniel, a former U.S. Attorney for South Carolina who in the early 1990s presided over a wave of S.C. General Assembly corruption cases dubbed Lost Trust, worked with Currie in the mid-1980s when both Daniel and Currie were assistant U.S. Attorneys investigating marijuana kingpin smuggling in the state.

“She was my mentor,” recalled Daniel, now a lawyer in private practice in Charleston. “She’s very, very bright.”

Currie, Daniel and another lawyer were assigned to prosecute drug kingpins in a nationally-prominent case that became known as Operation Jackpot, Daniel said.

Back then, Currie was already an exceptional legal presence, Daniel said. “Cam was the leader because of her leadership and smarts. She’s the total package.”

This story was originally published November 24, 2025 at 6:12 PM.