Welcome back, Deadline: Legal Newsletter readers. We're coming back from hiatus next week as the Supreme Court returns for what will likely be a momentous term. Do you have a question about the major legal issues facing the court — or the country? Share them with us on this form for a chance to have Jordan Rubin answer them in next week's newsletter. In the meantime, here's Jordan's latest analysis on James Comey's indictment:
If the Trump administration's prosecution of James Comey isn't "selective" and "vindictive," then those words have lost all meaning. But in the law, those words carry technical implications beyond their straightforward dictionary definitions and commonsense usages. So it's worth keeping in mind that Comey's case won't automatically be dismissed on those grounds if his lawyers raise them, even if they do manage ultimately to get the case tossed.
Defense motions to dismiss for selective and vindictive prosecution are difficult to win, as President Donald Trump himself learned when he lost such a motion in one of his federal criminal cases — which he nonetheless got dismissed by winning the 2024 election. But he and the Justice Department officials doing his bidding have given Comey and his legal team some material to work with in this new case, which could wind up being a rare example of one that gets tossed out pretrial.
To be sure, the former FBI director reacted to his indictment on charges of lying to Congress and obstruction by maintaining his innocence and saying, "Let's have a trial." But if his lawyers first seek to get the case dismissed — and it would be weird if they don't try — then vindictive and selective prosecution could be among their pretrial arguments.
Read the rest of Jordan Rubin's article here. And don't forget to submit your questions for Jordan to address in a future newsletter.
