Lawyers for former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James asked a federal judge in Alexandria on Thursday to dismiss indictments against their clients, arguing the prosecutor who secured the charges was illegally installed. U.S. District Judge Cameron McGowan Currie said she expects to rule by Thanksgiving on challenges to Lindsey Halligan’s appointment as interim U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia. The filings contend that Halligan was placed in the role after the prior interim U.S. attorney resigned under pressure in September, and that the appointment circumvented statutory and constitutional rules. The outcome of the appointment challenge could determine whether the politically charged prosecutions advance to trial.
Key takeaways
- Defense teams for James and Comey asked for dismissal on Nov. 13, 2025, arguing Lindsey Halligan’s appointment as interim U.S. attorney was unlawful.
- Judge Cameron McGowan Currie expects to decide the appointment challenge by Thanksgiving 2025, according to court remarks in Alexandria, Va.
- Prosecutor Erik Siebert had served a 120-day interim term and was later pushed out in September 2025, defense lawyers say.
- Comey faces charges including a false-statement count and obstruction of Congress; he has pleaded not guilty.
- Letitia James has pleaded not guilty to mortgage fraud allegations brought in the same jurisdiction.
- Justice Department counsel argued the indictments were valid and characterized any appointment issue as clerical; DOJ attorney Henry Whitaker said the grand jury followed the law.
- Defense lawyers assert successive interim appointments would allow administrations to avoid Senate confirmation for U.S. attorneys.
Background
The federal U.S. attorney system ordinarily relies on presidential nominations with Senate confirmation for permanent appointments. Statutory provisions permit an attorney general to name an interim U.S. attorney for up to 120 days, after which the vacancy typically goes before a district court for appointment authority. In early 2025, Attorney General Pam Bondi appointed Erik Siebert as interim U.S. attorney; Trump later announced intent to nominate Siebert in May, and local judges in the Eastern District had signaled support for retaining him once his 120 days elapsed.
According to court filings, Siebert resigned in September 2025 while facing pressure from the Trump administration to bring charges against Comey and James. Bondi then appointed Lindsey Halligan, a White House aide with no prior prosecutorial experience, to the interim U.S. attorney post. Defense lawyers say this sequence was meant to create an alternate pipeline to secure indictments after the prior interim had not pursued charges.
The appointment episodes have heightened accusations from critics that the Justice Department is being leveraged for political ends. The administration’s critics point to a Truth Social post by President Donald Trump expressing frustration with the lack of prosecutions and urging action, which defense teams cite as part of the surrounding context.
Main event
On Thursday, defense counsel for Comey and for James filed motions asking U.S. District Judge Currie to dismiss the indictments on the ground that Halligan lacked lawful authority when she presented the cases to a grand jury. Ephraim McDowell, representing Comey, argued that Halligan was the sole prosecutor in the grand jury room and that any lack of authority is not a harmless procedural error. The defense urged that dismissal be permanent to prevent the government from benefiting from a statutory violation.
The Justice Department disputed that characterization at the hearing. DOJ attorney Henry Whitaker told the court the law does not clearly forbid successive interim appointments by the attorney general and described any defect as at most a paperwork or clerical issue. Whitaker emphasized that a properly empaneled grand jury returned the indictments and that Bondi personally reviewed and ratified the charging decisions.
Judge Currie pressed both sides on gaps in the record. She noted that a portion of the grand jury materials provided to the court appeared to omit a segment of proceedings for unexplained reasons. A Justice Department spokesperson later said there was no missing time and that deliberative portions would not be transcribed, but the judge signaled she needed clarity before resolving the appointment issue.
The challenges to Halligan’s appointment are one prong of broader defense efforts. Separately, lawyers for both defendants have argued the prosecutions are motivated by improper vindictiveness or political animus and have asked for dismissal on those grounds as well. Those contentions are being litigated concurrently with the appointment challenge.
Analysis & implications
A ruling that Halligan’s appointment was unlawful could invalidate the indictments she presented and, depending on the judge’s remedy, could bar re-prosecution. Defense counsel urged that dismissal must be permanent to avoid rewarding an administration tactic that bypasses confirmation. The justice system’s balance between executive appointment power and judicial or Senate oversight is at the heart of the legal dispute.
Legally, the case tests how courts interpret statutory gaps around interim U.S. attorney appointments and whether successive interim appointments by an attorney general are permissible. If the court permits successive appointments, it could create a pathway for administrations to staff U.S. attorney offices without immediate Senate review; if it prohibits them, courts would preserve a check on unilateral executive staffing moves.
Politically, either outcome carries risk. A ruling for the defense would be presented by critics as evidence that short-term staffing maneuvers produced politically motivated prosecutions; a ruling for the government could intensify concerns about the independence of federal prosecutors in politically sensitive matters. Both scenarios are likely to have downstream effects on public trust in the Justice Department and on litigation strategy in other politically charged cases.
Comparison & data
| Key event | Date | Note |
|---|---|---|
| Siebert appointed interim U.S. attorney | January 2025 | 120-day interim term began |
| Trump announced intent to nominate Siebert | May 2025 | Executive announced nomination intent |
| Siebert resigned under pressure | September 2025 | Defense says resignation preceded Halligan appointment |
| Halligan appointed interim U.S. attorney | September 2025 | Appointment by AG Pam Bondi; no prior prosecutorial experience noted |
| Comey and James motions filed | Nov. 13, 2025 | Judge expects ruling by Thanksgiving 2025 |
The timeline highlights that Siebert’s statutorily limited interim term and the subsequent September appointment are central to the legal dispute. Defense counsel stresses the 120-day statutory limit as the trigger for judicial appointment authority; the government argues the statute does not preclude repeat interim appointments by the attorney general.
Reactions & quotes
Defense attorneys argued in court that the appointment mechanic was engineered to secure indictments without Senate oversight, and they pressed the court for a permanent remedy. Their filings frame the issue as one of statutory compliance and of protecting the confirmation process from evasion. Below are representative courtroom statements and the agencies that made them.
“Ms. Halligan was the sole prosecutor in the grand jury room, and when the sole prosecutor lacks the authority, that’s not going to be a harmless error.”
Ephraim McDowell, defense counsel for James/Comey
The Justice Department countered that the grand jury acted properly and that any appointment question does not negate the grand jury’s charging decision. DOJ counsel also pointed to AG Bondi’s review of the indictment as a corrective step. The department characterized the issue as procedural rather than substantive.
“The grand jury made a decision based on the facts and the law, and they followed their oath.”
Henry Whitaker, counsel for the Justice Department
Judge Currie pressed both sides over an apparent omission in the grand jury materials produced to the court. The judge’s request for clarification reflects the evidentiary threshold she will apply when deciding whether an appointment defect requires dismissal of the charges.
Unconfirmed
- Whether a discrete segment of the grand jury transcription is truly missing from the court record: the Justice Department says deliberations are not transcribed, but the judge observed an apparent omission.
- Whether Erik Siebert was effectively forced out by the administration: defense filings assert pressure prompted his resignation, but formal proof of coercion has not been conclusively established on the record.
- Whether AG Bondi’s personal review and ratification of the indictments fully cures any defect arising from Halligan’s appointment: the parties dispute the legal effect of such ratification.
Bottom line
The immediate legal contest centers on whether an interim U.S. attorney who secured indictments had the lawful authority to do so. Judge Currie’s ruling by Thanksgiving 2025 will determine whether the cases proceed to trial, are dismissed with prejudice, or return to prosecutors for further action. A decision that defenses prefer—permanent dismissal—would represent a major rebuke of the appointment method used here; a contrary ruling would allow the prosecutions to continue and could reshape how future administrations staff U.S. attorney offices.
Beyond the courtroom, the dispute will reverberate politically and institutionally. The case tests statutory limits on appointment power, raises questions about prosecutorial independence in politically sensitive matters, and may prompt legislative or policy responses to clarify interim appointment procedures. Observers should watch the judge’s remedy closely: the practical consequences for the defendants, the Justice Department, and public confidence in federal prosecution hinge on whether any legal defect is deemed curable or fatal.
Sources
- NPR (news report — original coverage summarizing court filings and hearing)