Short Answer

Both the model and the market expect a Comey indictment to be reinstated on appeal before 2027, with no compelling evidence of mispricing.

1. Executive Verdict

  • A future Attorney General could override the 2019 DOJ prosecutorial declination.
  • Advocacy groups continue pursuing actions related to the Durham Report's findings.
  • No current D.C. judge has dismissed entire politically sensitive indictments.
  • The D.C. Circuit occasionally reverses lower court dismissals for selective prosecution.

Who Wins and Why

Outcome Market Model Why
Before 2027 19.0% 19.0% Appeals courts rarely reinstate dismissed indictments without compelling legal errors or new evidence.

2. Market Behavior & Price Dynamics

Historical Price (Probability)

Outcome probability
Date
This market has demonstrated a clear sideways trading pattern, with the probability fluctuating within a narrow nine-point range between 13.0% and 22.0%. The price began at 19.0% and is currently at the same level, indicating a lack of sustained directional momentum since its inception. There have been no significant price spikes or drops that would suggest a major shift in market expectations. Given the absence of specific news or external events in the provided context, these minor price oscillations appear to be driven by internal trading dynamics rather than reactions to new fundamental information. Overall, the chart reflects a stable market sentiment that has consistently priced this outcome as a low-probability event.
The total trading volume of 1,160 contracts suggests a moderate level of market participation. The stability of the price, even during periods of higher volume, indicates that there is strong agreement among traders at these probability levels. The market has established a clear support level at 13.0%, where the price has previously found buying interest, and a resistance level at 22.0%, which has historically capped upward movements. The current price of 19.0% is positioned near the midpoint of this established range and has acted as a point of equilibrium recently. This persistent range-bound activity suggests that traders are awaiting new information before developing the conviction needed to push the price beyond these established boundaries.

3. Market Data

View on Kalshi →

Contract Snapshot

This market resolves to YES if any federal appellate court, including the U.S. Supreme Court, reverses or vacates the November 24, 2025 district court order dismissing James Comey's indictment, allowing criminal prosecution to proceed, before January 1, 2027. If this condition is not met by the deadline, the market resolves to NO. The market will close early upon the event's occurrence, otherwise by December 31, 2026 at 11:59 PM EST, with payouts expected 30 minutes after closing.

Available Contracts

Market options and current pricing

Outcome bucket Yes (price) No (price) Last trade probability
Before 2027 $0.19 $0.86 19%

Market Discussion

The discussion revolves around the legal developments concerning the potential reinstatement of James Comey's indictment. The primary argument for "Yes" is the Justice Department's filing of a brief with the 4th Circuit, seeking to revive criminal cases against Comey by arguing the Attorney General's power for successive interim US attorney appointments. No explicit arguments for "No" are present in the discussion, although the market currently shows a 19% chance of the indictment being reinstated.

4. Could James Comey Face New Charges After Previous Declination?

DOJ Declination (2019)Declined prosecution for memo handling/disclosure [^]
Potential New ChargesFalse statements, obstruction from 2025 indictment [^]
Statute of LimitationsExact expiration date undetermined from sources [^]
The Department of Justice declined prosecuting James Comey for handling sensitive information in 2019. This followed a referral from the DOJ Office of the Inspector General (OIG), which investigated Comey's retention and disclosure of sensitive investigative information and his handling of certain official memoranda. The OIG concluded that Comey had violated FBI policies and the terms of his employment by retaining and disseminating sensitive information and engaging in conduct inconsistent with his duties [1, 2, 9, 10, 9, p. iv].
A new administration could pursue different charges, potentially seen in a 2025 indictment. Evidence suggests a 2025 indictment against James Comey in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. These potential charges include making false statements to Congress, obstruction of justice, and conspiracy to obstruct justice [^]. Such charges are specifically related to his testimony regarding the FBI's investigation into former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's emails and address different alleged misconduct than the memo handling and disclosure previously investigated [^].
Exact statute of limitations expiration dates are not determinable from available information. While a 2025 indictment for these new charges implies the statute of limitations had not expired at that time, the provided sources do not specify the exact dates of the alleged offenses concerning false statements, obstruction, or conspiracy. Without this specific information about the dates of the alleged criminal acts and the precise statutory period for each charge, the exact expiration date for the statute of limitations on these potential charges cannot be determined from the available information [^].

5. What Is the D.C. Circuit's Reversal Rate for Selective Prosecution Dismissals?

Key Case ReversalU.S. v. Meyer (1987) reversed dismissal of indictment [^]
Burden of Proof for Selective ProsecutionDefendants face a 'heavy burden' to prove selective prosecution [^]
Aggregate Statistics AvailabilityNo comprehensive aggregate statistics available for this specific scenario [^]
The D.C. Circuit has notably reversed trial court dismissals for selective prosecution [^]. While comprehensive aggregate statistical data specific to trial court dismissals of indictments involving former senior executive branch officials on selective or vindictive prosecution grounds is not available, a significant historical precedent exists where the D.C. Circuit overturned such a dismissal. This demonstrates a high bar for such claims to withstand appellate review [^].
U.S. v. Meyer illustrates the D.C. Circuit's stance on dismissals [^]. A prominent example of this is the U.S. v. Meyer case, decided by the D.C. Circuit in 1987, which involved Richard Kleindienst, a former Assistant Attorney General [^]. In this instance, the D.C. Circuit reversed the District Court's dismissal of the indictment, thereby reinstating the charges [^]. This specific outcome underscores the D.C. Circuit's willingness to overturn trial court decisions that dismiss indictments on selective prosecution grounds, especially in cases involving high-profile former officials.
Proving selective or vindictive prosecution requires an exceptionally high burden [^] . Blackley, 986 F. Supp. 616 (D.D.C. 1997)">[^]. More broadly, the legal standard for establishing such claims places a "heavy burden" on defendants [^]. Courts consistently require evidence of both discriminatory effect and discriminatory intent to substantiate these claims [^]. This stringent requirement means that trial court dismissals on these grounds are generally infrequent and are subjected to rigorous appellate scrutiny, as evidenced by the Meyer case [^].

6. What Key Actions Followed the Durham Report's Release?

Judicial Watch FOIA (Durham)Filed FOIA complaint against DOJ for records related to the Durham Report [^]
America First Legal ResponseReleased a public statement after the report's release [^]
DOJ OPR Formal ComplaintSubmitted on January 18, 2024 [^]
Groups like America First Legal and Judicial Watch pursued distinct preparatory actions. Since the release of the Durham Report, their primary engagement has involved litigation to obtain records and making public statements. Judicial Watch has initiated several Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuits to acquire records related to the Durham Report, the Crossfire Hurricane investigation, and James Comey [^]. America First Legal issued a public statement responding to the report [^], and separately requested an Inspector General investigation into the Department of Justice's (DOJ) actions, though this request concerned the raid on President Trump's residence rather than the Durham Report directly [^].
Judicial Watch has focused extensively on FOIA litigation for transparency. Their legal efforts specifically target information concerning the investigations detailed within the Durham Report. These actions include a FOIA complaint against the Department of Justice (DOJ) for records pertinent to the Durham Report [^], a lawsuit to secure withheld records from the Crossfire Hurricane/Russiagate investigation [^], and another FOIA complaint regarding records related to James Comey [^]. These initiatives aim to compel the disclosure of information rather than filing formal complaints with the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) or outlining prosecutorial strategies directly tied to the Durham Report's findings.
America First Legal issued a statement, and other specific actions occurred. America First Legal (AFL) responded to the Durham Report by releasing a public statement [^]. While AFL requested an Inspector General investigation into the DOJ's 'political weaponization,' this action was a direct response to the raid on President Trump's home and was not directly linked to the Durham Report's findings or an outlined prosecutorial plan [^]. Separately, a notable preparatory action mentioned in the research was the submission of a formal complaint to the DOJ Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) on January 18, 2024 [^], which aligns with efforts targeting internal DOJ oversight bodies.

7. Which D.C. Judges Dismiss Politically Sensitive Indictments?

Judge Chutkan's RulingDismissed three specific counts, denied entire indictment dismissal (Donald Trump case) [^]
Comey Indictment JudgeName not publicly released for dismissal consideration/action [^]
D.C. District Court Judges15 active District Judges [^]
No current D.C. judge has a documented history of dismissing entire indictments. Based on available web research, no judge in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia has a clearly documented history of dismissing entire indictments in politically sensitive cases. While Judge Tanya Chutkan made rulings in a high-profile, politically sensitive case involving Donald Trump, her order dismissed three specific counts within the indictment but explicitly denied the motion to dismiss the entire indictment [^]. Although sources indicate a U.S. judge has weighed or acted on a dismissal concerning an indictment against James Comey, with one document suggesting a dismissal in November 2024, the name of the judge involved in these specific actions is not publicly released or identifiable from the provided materials [^].
A precise probability of assignment to such a judge cannot be determined. This is because no judges meeting the specified criteria were identified in the research. The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia currently lists 15 active District Judges [^]. New cases filed in federal courts, including the D.C. District Court, are randomly assigned to judges, a practice designed to ensure fairness and impartiality [^]. Therefore, if a new case against Comey were to be filed, it would be randomly assigned among the active judges.

8. How Can a Future Attorney General Override Prior Prosecutorial Decisions?

Primary Prosecution GuidelinesPrinciples of Federal Prosecution (Justice Manual Title 9, Chapter 27) [^]
AG Policy DocumentsAttorney General memoranda for department-wide policies [^]
Mechanism for ChangeNew Attorney General can issue new directives or update Justice Manual [^]
To initiate a prosecution on matters previously reviewed and closed by a prior administration, a future Attorney General would need to address existing Department of Justice policies and directives. Attorney Generals can alter prosecution guidelines for closed cases. The "Principles of Federal Prosecution," detailed in Title 9, Chapter 27 of the Justice Manual, provide fundamental guidance for federal prosecutors in deciding whether to pursue or decline a prosecution [^]. These principles consider factors such as the presence of probable cause, the significance of the federal interest, and the efficient use of government resources. Decisions made by a previous administration to close a case typically align with this framework [^]. For a future Attorney General to prosecute a previously closed matter, they would be required to formally update or reinterpret these principles within the Justice Manual, or issue new directives mandating a re-evaluation of prior decisions based on changes in policy [^].
New Attorney General memoranda can override prior prosecutorial decisions. Beyond these foundational principles, Attorney Generals also issue specific memoranda that establish department-wide policies concerning charging, plea agreements, and sentencing [^]. These memoranda articulate the administration's prosecutorial priorities and methodologies. A new Attorney General possesses the authority to issue new memoranda that supersede or modify previous directives, thereby altering the policy landscape for prosecutorial decisions [^]. Consequently, an Attorney General could override a prior administration's decision not to prosecute by directing a new investigation or prosecution, especially if new evidence emerges or if the new administration reinterprets existing laws or policies, effectively overriding the previous prosecutorial judgment [^].

9. What Could Change the Odds

Key Catalysts

Catalyst analysis unavailable.

Key Dates & Catalysts

  • Expiration: January 08, 2027
  • Closes: January 01, 2027

10. Decision-Flipping Events

  • Trigger: Catalyst analysis unavailable.

12. Historical Resolutions

No historical resolution data available for this series.