U.S. Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito attends an event organized by the U.S. Embassy to the Holy See, in Rome, Italy, September 20, 2025. REUTERS/Vincenzo Livieri

Attorney General Pam Bondi on Monday vowed to appeal after a judge threw out the Department of Justice's cases against former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James.

“We'll be taking all available legal action, including an immediate appeal to hold Letitia James and James Comey accountable for their unlawful conduct," Bondi said at a press conference.

U.S. District Judge Cameron McGowan Currie tossed the charges against Comey and James without prejudice, ruling that U.S. Attorney Lindsey Halligan, who had brought the charges three days ahead of a Sept. 30 deadline, had been unlawfully appointed. The judge ruled Halligan was installed “on an interim basis" after the previous U.S. attorney said there was not enough evidence to charge James or Comey.

“This case presents the unique, if not unprecedented, situation where an unconstitutionally appointed prosecutor, 'exercising power [she] did not lawfully possess,’ … acted alone in conducting a grand jury proceeding and securing an indictment,” Currie said.

But former prosecutor and CNN legal analyst Joey Jackson said if Bondi carries her argument up to the Supreme Court, she’ll be putting it before a conservative judge who has already ruled against other U.S. attorney appointments that failed to meet the same merit.

“The way I view it … is that there's a number of issues. Remember that we've seen in New Jersey an opinion that was consistent with this opinion and that is that you have 120 days [for an AG] to get Senate confirmation. You've got one shot at the apple, and if you don't, then … the district in that specific location gets to appoint the U.S. attorney. You, the executive, do not,” Jackson told “Situation Room” hosts Wolf Blitzer and Pamela Brown. “We saw it happen in Nevada. Same ruling — an invalidly appointed U.S. attorney. We saw it happen in California. Why am I saying this? Because there’s precedent.”

“I know how oftentimes the politics are ‘oh, this was a lunatic judge who made a lunatic decision.’ Nonsense. There's precedent for it,” Jackson said, adding that he was curious how Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito would vote, considering Alito is a staunch Trump advocate who has ruled reliably in favor of Trump on White House petitions to the court.

“When Samuel Alito was at the Department of Justice, he wrote a legal opinion indicating that exactly what this judge ruled as it relates to the dismissal of the indictment on Comey and Letitia James as to the 120 days [time limit] to get, a Senate confirmation,” Jackson said. “That's what it is. Now, this justice department takes a contrary view, but interesting. If it goes up to the supreme court, will he change his opinion on that, or will he be consistent with what he said almost 40 years ago?”

- YouTube youtu.be