Lead
On Nov. 13, 2025, a federal judge in Alexandria, Virginia, told lawyers she would rule before Thanksgiving on whether Lindsey Halligan was lawfully appointed when she obtained indictments against former F.B.I. director James B. Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James. The question concerns the validity of Halligan’s role as U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia after she was installed by President Trump and accompanied by public instructions to pursue his political opponents. If the judge finds the appointment unlawful, defense teams ask that both cases be dismissed with prejudice, which would prevent refiling. Judge Cameron McGowan Currie gave no clear hint of her decision at the hearing but signaled she intends to move quickly.
Key Takeaways
- The hearing took place Nov. 13, 2025, in Federal District Court in Alexandria, Va.; Judge Cameron McGowan Currie said she would issue a decision before Thanksgiving.
- Comey and James have jointly moved to dismiss the indictments with prejudice, arguing Lindsey Halligan’s appointment was unlawful and tainted by political direction.
- Lindsey Halligan, installed as interim U.S. attorney in September 2025, presented evidence to the grand juries in both matters and was the only prosecutor to sign the indictments.
- Defense lawyers contend Halligan replaced Erik S. Siebert after he had already served a 120-day interim term, which they say bars a fresh 120-day appointment under the relevant statute.
- The Justice Department argued successive interim appointments are permissible and described the issue as a “paperwork error,” represented in court by Henry C. Whitaker.
- Attorney General Pam Bondi filed a sworn statement attempting to retroactively name Halligan a special attorney and to ratify the grand jury work; Judge Currie expressed skepticism about the claim.
- Court decisions in other districts have found prior Trump-era interim U.S. attorney appointments unlawful — including for Alina Habba (New Jersey), Sigal Chattah (Nevada) and Bilal Essayli (Central District of California).
Background
The dispute centers on the mechanics of federal interim U.S. attorney appointments and the constitutional role of Senate confirmation. Under the law, a federal prosecutor may serve as an interim U.S. attorney for up to 120 days; after that, the statute envisions a different mechanism for filling the office. Defense teams argue the Trump administration sought to circumvent the Senate confirmation requirement by repeatedly naming interim chiefs. The practical effect, they say, is to allow a president to place loyalists in powerful prosecutorial positions without the usual checks.
Lindsey Halligan is a former White House aide and personal lawyer to President Trump who was installed to lead the Eastern District of Virginia in September 2025. That district handles sensitive national-security and terrorism matters and is widely viewed as a key venue for high-profile federal prosecutions. Her predecessor, Erik S. Siebert, was a career prosecutor who resisted pursuing certain charges against Mr. Comey, and was removed shortly after he declined to file an indictment. The sequence of removals and appointments has heightened scrutiny of the process.
Main Event
At the Nov. 13 hearing, counsel for Mr. Comey and Ms. James — Ephraim McDowell and Abbe Lowell, respectively — argued that Halligan’s appointment was procedurally defective and inherently politicized. They emphasized that Mr. Trump publicly instructed Halligan to pursue his rivals and that she personally presented evidence to grand juries in both cases, an atypical role for a U.S. attorney. The defense teams urged dismissal with prejudice, saying that if Halligan lacked authority, allowing a successor simply to refile would nullify the remedy.
Representing the government, Henry C. Whitaker, a senior Justice Department official, countered that the statute allows successive interim appointments and characterized the procedural objections as a paperwork lapse rather than a jurisdictional defect. The government asked Judge Currie to reject any effort to throw out the indictments and suggested the courts should not equate administrative irregularity with immunity from prosecution.
The situation intensified after Attorney General Pam Bondi submitted a sworn declaration saying she had retroactively named Halligan a special attorney for the two prosecutions and had personally reviewed and ratified the grand jury materials. Judge Currie expressed doubt that Bondi could have fully reviewed the grand jury record, noting that prosecutors had provided only partial grand jury notes and blamed a transcription service for missing pages.
Analysis & Implications
A ruling that Halligan was unlawfully appointed and that the indictments must be dismissed with prejudice would have immediate, high-stakes consequences: both prosecutions could be terminated without easy administrative replacement. The remedy sought by the defendants is deliberately broad because a narrower remedy—disqualifying Halligan but permitting refiling by a different prosecutor—would leave the government the means to proceed. Courts historically weigh the seriousness of appointment defects against disruption to prosecutions; this case tests where that balance falls in politically charged matters.
Beyond the two cases, the decision could set a precedent constraining how administrations use interim appointments to staff U.S. attorney offices. Several judges have already found other similar appointments unlawful, and a ruling for the defendants here would strengthen litigation that challenges the executive branch’s ability to install interim prosecutors repeatedly. That could force a renewed emphasis on timely Senate confirmations or legislative fixes to close perceived loopholes.
Politically, the case deepens concerns about the erosion of prosecutorial independence when personnel choices follow partisan priorities. If courts require a strict interpretation of the 120-day limit, future presidents would face tighter limits on placing personal allies in charge of federal prosecutions. Conversely, if courts endorse the government’s broader reading, administrations would retain more flexibility but face intensified public skepticism about impartiality.
Comparison & Data
| Name | District | Court Finding |
|---|---|---|
| Alina Habba | New Jersey | Appointment ruled unlawful by federal court |
| Sigal Chattah | Nevada | Appointment ruled unlawful by federal court |
| Bilal Essayli | Central District of California | Appointment ruled unlawful by federal court |
The table above summarizes recent rulings in which federal judges found that certain interim appointments made during the same period were unlawful. Those decisions form a pattern that defense lawyers cite to support their argument in the Halligan matter. While each appointment involved different facts, courts have repeatedly scrutinized the use of successive 120-day interim terms as a potential workaround to Senate confirmation.
Reactions & Quotes
Defense counsel framed the dispute as a constitutional and procedural problem tied to the fidelity of prosecutions to established law. They argued the administration’s personnel moves were designed to remove a career prosecutor who declined to bring charges and to replace him with an ally willing to pursue politically sensitive targets.
“The removal and replacement here were not ordinary personnel decisions; they were designed to skirt the Senate-confirmation process and to target political opponents,”
Ephraim McDowell, counsel for James B. Comey
Government lawyers emphasized statutory interpretation and continuity of enforcement. They urged the court to view the dispute as a technical defect that should not invalidate indictments obtained after ordinary investigative processes.
“The law permits interim service designed to keep offices functioning; these issues are administrative, not jurisdictional,”
Henry C. Whitaker, Justice Department
Judge Currie also scrutinized Attorney General Bondi’s retroactive ratification of Halligan’s work, expressing skepticism about the practical possibility of a full, contemporaneous review of grand jury material.
“She couldn’t have done it,”
Judge Cameron McGowan Currie
Unconfirmed
- Whether Attorney General Pam Bondi actually reviewed every relevant grand jury page as she claimed remains unverified; the court was told some grand jury material was missing from the record.
- The extent to which President Trump personally directed Halligan’s charging decisions beyond public statements is asserted by defense counsel but not proven in the hearing record.
- Potential internal Justice Department communications describing the decision to remove Erik S. Siebert and install Halligan have not been publicly disclosed and remain subject to discovery.
Bottom Line
The hearing set an expedited timetable that could resolve, by late November 2025, whether the prosecutions of James and Comey can proceed. A finding for the defendants would likely end these specific cases and strengthen legal limits on successive interim U.S. attorney appointments; a finding for the government would allow the indictments to move forward and preserve broader executive flexibility.
Whatever the outcome, the dispute highlights a structural tension between executive staffing powers and safeguards designed to keep prosecutorial decisions insulated from partisan influence. Observers should watch Judge Currie’s written opinion for the legal reasoning that will shape both the immediate prosecutions and future challenges to interim appointments.