someone
@que.one
Laughs to stay sane, believes we can do better.
Reposted by someone
Judge Currie, appointed to determine the Appointment Clause question, did not find the matter of whether to dismiss with or without prejudice to be particularly complicated.
![Ultimately, I believe the Supreme Court’s Appointments Clause jurisprudence provides the answer to the with-or-without-prejudice question. In both Ryder and Lucia, the Court essentially unwound the actions taken by the unconstitutionally appointed officer and restored the affected party to the position the party occupied before being subjected to those invalid acts. See Ryder, 515 U.S. at 188 (ordering a new “hearing before a properly appointed panel”); Lucia, 585 U.S. at 251 (“[T]he ‘appropriate’ remedy for an adjudication tainted with an appointments violation is a new ‘hearing before a properly appointed’ official.” (quoting Ryder, 515 U.S. at 183, 188)); see also Nguyen v. United States, 539 U.S. 69, 83 (2003) (vacating decisions made by an appeals panel that included a judge who was ineligible to sit by designation on an Article III court and remanding “for fresh consideration of petitioners’ appeals by a properly constituted panel”). I will do the same here. I will invalidate the ultra vires acts performed by Ms. Halligan and dismiss the indictment without prejudice, returning Mr. Comey to the status he occupied before being indicted. See Trump, 740 F. Supp. 3d at 1303, 1309.](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:36eqtmzysqf7wsslczw4uxcd/bafkreicyvwqtpir3cq4f5xudootpvsbgot7iunqhuo7k4hp6pj5daoznmy@jpeg)
November 24, 2025 at 6:12 PM
Judge Currie, appointed to determine the Appointment Clause question, did not find the matter of whether to dismiss with or without prejudice to be particularly complicated.