A federal judge will hear arguments Thursday from attorneys representing former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James. Both are challenging the legality of Lindsey Halligan’s appointment to lead the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Virginia, claiming she was illegitimately appointed and therefore lacked authority to bring charges […]
3 min.
A federal judge will hear arguments Thursday from attorneys representing former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James. Both are challenging the legality of Lindsey Halligan’s appointment to lead the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Virginia, claiming she was illegitimately appointed and therefore lacked authority to bring charges against them.
In September, Attorney General Pam Bondi appointed Halligan, a former insurance lawyer with no prior prosecutorial experience and a close ally of President Donald Trump. Her appointment followed U.S. Attorney Erik Siebert’s abrupt resignation, after he reportedly faced pressure from Trump to pursue investigations targeting political rivals.
Download the SAN app today to stay up-to-date with Unbiased. Straight Facts™.
Point phone camera here
Since taking office, Halligan has indicted both James and Comey — moves their defense teams say were politically motivated.
Charges against Comey and James
Comey was indicted in September on one count of making false statements to Congress and one count of obstruction of justice. The charges are tied to Senate testimony he gave five years ago. He pleaded not guilty last month.
James was indicted on one count of bank fraud and one count of making false statements to a financial institution. She also pleaded not guilty last month.
Both argue their indictments are invalid because Halligan was not legally authorized to act as U.S. attorney. They claim the sequence of events leading to her appointment shows the prosecutions were purely driven by Trump’s personal vendettas.
The 120-day rule
At the core of the dispute is a 120-day limit for interim U.S. attorneys that the attorney general appoints. The law limits interim attorneys to 120 days, after which the district court must either extend the official’s term or appoint a new U.S. attorney until the vacancy is filled.
In this case, Siebert was appointed in January, and judges extended his term in May, ahead of that 120-day limit. When Siebert resigned in September, Comey’s and James’ lawyers argue that the clock did not reset — meaning Bondi had no authority to appoint another interim replacement.
“The period does not start anew once the 120-day period expires or if a substitute interim U.S. Attorney is appointed before the 120-day period expires,” they wrote.
Comey’s legal team said allowing successive interim appointments would let the attorney general — and by extension, the president — circumvent Senate confirmation and the district court’s oversight.
They say Halligan “was defectively appointed to her office as an interim U.S. Attorney,” and said Comey’s indictment is “equally a nullity,” and should be dismissed.
Questions over Halligan’s authority
James’ attorneys are also asking the court to bar Halligan from supervising her prosecution. They wrote that she “had no authority to litigate this case on behalf of the United States.”
One final sticking point for the attorneys is the fact that Halligan was the only Justice Department prosecutor to sign Comey and James’ indictments. She alone presented evidence to the grand juries, rather than with career prosecutors.
The hearing
U.S. District Judge Cameron Currie, a Clinton appointee from South Carolina, will preside over Thursday’s hearing.
It’s unlikely Currie will rule immediately. However, the timeline will likely be short, given both James and Comey are scheduled to go to trial in January.
