Lead: Attorneys for former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James asked a federal judge on Thursday to dismiss criminal indictments, arguing that the prosecutor who brought the charges was installed unlawfully. The filings contend President Donald Trump’s appointee, Lindsey Halligan, was not validly appointed when she led the Eastern District of Virginia office to indict both officials. Both defendants have pleaded not guilty — Comey to counts of allegedly making false statements to Congress and James to mortgage fraud-related charges — and asked the court to dismiss the cases with prejudice. U.S. District Judge Cameron Currie said she plans to rule before Thanksgiving.
Key Takeaways
- Comey and James moved to dismiss indictments arguing the appointment of Lindsey Halligan violated the Constitution’s Appointments Clause, seeking dismissal with prejudice.
- Halligan, a White House aide and former insurance lawyer with no prior prosecutorial experience, was installed after the prior interim leader left; she presented charges against Comey four days after taking control.
- Judge Cameron Currie, assigned last month to the challenge, pressed DOJ lawyers about missing grand jury transcript material from 4:28 p.m. to the moment the indictment was returned.
- Attorney General Pam Bondi signed a March 6, 2025 order seeking to retroactively ratify Halligan as a “Special Attorney,” stating she had reviewed Halligan’s grand jury appearances.
- Government counsel argued the retroactive order and any defects are, at most, a paperwork error and asked that indictments remain if Halligan is disqualified.
- Career prosecutors in the office had reportedly declined to bring charges; one interim appointee, Erik Siebert, resisted indictments before Halligan’s arrival.
- Similar disqualification challenges occurred in offices in Los Angeles, Nevada and New Jersey where Trump-era appointments exceeded a 120-day statutory limit.
Background
The controversy stems from a sequence of rapid personnel moves in the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Virginia. After the 120-day interim appointment period for a previous appointee expired, judges had selected Erik Siebert to lead the office; he resisted pursuing cases against Comey and James following internal career prosecutors’ assessments. President Donald Trump removed the supervising appointee and installed Lindsey Halligan, a White House aide with a background in insurance law rather than prior prosecutorial work.
Within days of Halligan’s installation she dismissed the recommendations of career prosecutors and personally presented allegations to a grand jury. Sources say Halligan sought an indictment against Comey four days after taking charge and two weeks later appeared before a grand jury to secure charges against Letitia James. The timing is notable because prosecutors and defense counsel pointed to statutes of limitations and the narrow window in which charges could be filed.
Main Event
At a hearing on Thursday before U.S. District Judge Cameron Currie, lawyers for Comey and James argued Halligan’s appointment was invalid under the Appointments Clause and therefore any indictments she sought are void. The defense filings emphasized that Attorney General Pam Bondi later signed a March 6, 2025 order attempting to retroactively designate Halligan as a “Special Attorney” with authority to present the cases.
Judge Currie probed the government’s claim that Bondi had reviewed grand jury materials before signing the retroactive order, noting a segment of the grand jury transcript—from 4:28 p.m. on the day of the indictment until the return of the indictment—appears to be missing. The judge observed there may have been no court reporter present for that interval or that portion was not transcribed.
Government attorney Henry Whitaker countered that Bondi’s awareness of the material facts satisfied the requirements for ratification and framed the defense challenge as at most a paperwork error. Whitaker asked the court, if it disqualified Halligan, to allow the indictments to remain in place while the government considered next steps.
Defense counsel for both Comey and James sought dismissal with prejudice, arguing that Halligan’s appointment was a constitutional defect that cannot be remedied by later paperwork. The filings contend the rapid appointment and subsequent charging decisions followed direct urging from President Trump after he removed the prior appointee overseeing the office.
Analysis & Implications
If Judge Currie finds Halligan’s appointment unlawful, the legal consequence could be the dismissal of the indictments or, depending on the ruling, the disqualification of Halligan with the government given leave to refile by properly authorized prosecutors. A dismissal with prejudice would block refiling and represent a definitive procedural victory for the defendants. Such a finding would also raise questions about the limits of presidential influence in installing interim prosecutors and the safeguards intended by the Appointments Clause.
Beyond these two cases, a ruling for the defense could affect other prosecutions in which noncareer or improperly installed officials played a central role. Courts in at least three other districts recently scrutinized Trump-era interim appointments that exceeded a 120-day statutory window. A broad judicial rebuke of such practices could constrain rapid personnel maneuvers in politically sensitive prosecutions.
Politically, the litigation feeds into competing narratives. Critics describe the indictments as part of a retribution campaign targeting the President’s opponents, while administration defenders, including Vice President JD Vance, have insisted the prosecutions are law-driven. A ruling that emphasizes procedural defects would not directly resolve the underlying factual allegations in either criminal case, but it would shape how and where those factual disputes may be litigated if at all.
Comparison & Data
| Milestone | Date / Interval |
|---|---|
| Bondi’s retroactive order | March 6, 2025 |
| Halligan presents charges against Comey | 4 days after installation |
| Halligan seeks James indictment | ~2 weeks after Comey indictment |
| Judge Currie assigned to challenge | Appointed last month |
The table summarizes the sequence of key dates and intervals that form the factual backbone of the appointment challenge. Those short intervals—four days to present an indictment, two weeks to pursue a second—are central to defense claims that the office’s leadership change directly produced the indictments without the typical career-prosecutor vetting.
Reactions & Quotes
Government counsel framed the dispute as procedural and repairable, urging the court not to discard indictments if Halligan is disqualified.
“This is, at best, a paperwork error; the Attorney General’s awareness of the material facts suffices to ratify the appointment,”
Henry Whitaker, Department of Justice counsel
Defense attorneys characterized the moves as a constitutional and statutory circumvention intended to secure politically sensitive charges.
“The interim appointment violated a clear statutory command so that the interim U.S. Attorney could indict an outspoken critic of the President,”
Counsel for James and Comey (filing excerpt)
Judge Currie’s questions during the hearing signaled concern about the factual record and the completeness of grand jury documentation, prompting scrutiny of the retroactive ratification process.
“How does the Attorney General say she has reviewed the grand jury material when they didn’t exist?”
U.S. District Judge Cameron Currie
Unconfirmed
- Whether the missing transcript segment definitively proves no court reporter was present remains unverified pending production of the original record.
- Assertions that the indictments were motivated primarily by political retribution reflect critics’ claims; direct evidence of motive has not been established in court filings.
- The full extent to which career prosecutors resisted the cases before Halligan’s arrival is described in filings and reporting but has not been exhaustively documented on the public record.
Bottom Line
The immediate legal question is narrowly procedural: was Lindsey Halligan validly appointed such that the indictments she sought are legally sound. Judge Currie’s focus on missing grand jury material and on the retroactive order signed by Attorney General Pam Bondi indicates the court will closely scrutinize the administrative record and ratification theory before issuing a ruling anticipated before Thanksgiving.
A decision finding the appointment unlawful and granting dismissal with prejudice would end the criminal exposure for Comey and James in these indictments and could limit similar appointment tactics elsewhere. Conversely, a finding that defects are curable could keep the cases alive and shift the dispute back to the underlying merits of the allegations.
Sources
- ABC News — U.S. national news reporting summarizing court filings and the hearing (media)