Lead: On Thursday in Alexandria, Va., U.S. District Judge Cameron Currie convened a rare joint hearing on motions seeking to void indictments brought by acting U.S. Attorney Lindsey Halligan against former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James. The challenges accuse Halligan of serving unlawfully as acting U.S. attorney after a 120-day statutory limit and ask that the indictments be dismissed. Halligan was sworn in Sept. 22 after her predecessor, Erik Siebert, resigned on Sept. 19, and the filings argue the clock should not reset with her appointment. The outcome could determine whether the prosecutions proceed as currently charged or require re-filing under limited statutory exceptions.
Key Takeaways
- Hearing location and judge: The joint oral argument took place in Alexandria, Virginia, before U.S. District Judge Cameron Currie on Oct. 31 (Currie traveled from the District of South Carolina to avoid local conflict).
- Appointment timeline: Lindsey Halligan was sworn in as interim U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia on Sept. 22, 2025, three days after Erik Siebert resigned on Sept. 19, 2025.
- Statutory dispute: Federal law generally limits interim U.S. attorney service to 120 days unless the Senate confirms a nominee; plaintiffs say Halligan’s appointment cannot restart that 120-day clock.
- Indictments challenged: Comey was indicted on a false-statement charge tied to a Sept. 2020 Senate hearing; Letitia James faces a bank-fraud charge connected to prior civil litigation — each pleaded not guilty.
- Statute of limitations considerations: The Comey indictment was unsealed mere days before a five-year limitations deadline; DOJ cites 18 U.S.C. 3288 to permit a new indictment within six months if a dismissal occurs after the limitations period.
- Department action: On Oct. 31, former Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi issued a retroactive internal DOJ order appointing Halligan as a “special attorney” effective Sept. 22 and delegated authority to pursue the prosecutions.
- Ethics complaints: Halligan faces bar complaints in Florida and Virginia filed by Campaign for Accountability alleging abuse of power; separate appointment challenges have arisen for other Trump appointees nationwide.
Background
The dispute sits at the intersection of criminal procedure and the Federal Vacancies Reform Act. Congress set a 120-day cap on interim U.S. attorney service absent Senate confirmation to limit executive branch bypassing of Senate advice-and-consent. Over the last two years, multiple acting U.S. attorneys appointed during the Trump administration have faced legal challenges that hinge on that statutory limit and on whether subsequent judicial or departmental steps lawfully extended or reauthorized their tenure.
Erik Siebert had been serving as the Eastern District of Virginia’s interim U.S. attorney since Jan. 21, 2025, but resigned on Sept. 19, 2025 after public pressure tied to calls from President Donald Trump to prosecute several of his political adversaries. Halligan — who worked with Trump’s legal team in the Mar-a-Lago classified documents matter but lacked prior prosecutorial experience — was sworn in three days later on Sept. 22, 2025.
The prosecutions themselves grew out of politically charged episodes. Comey, fired by Trump in May 2017, was indicted in late September 2025 on an allegation of making a false statement to Congress about a 2017 matter. James, who has been a frequent Trump critic and had previously sued him and his businesses, faces a separate bank-fraud charge tied to earlier civil disputes; that charge is within a 10-year limitations window.
Main Event
At the joint hearing, attorneys for Comey and James argued that Halligan’s appointment cannot reset the 120-day interim clock and that any indictments she signed lack lawful authority. They contend that allowing sequential interim appointments would nullify Congressional limits and permit indefinite circumvention of Senate confirmation requirements. Patrick Fitzgerald, representing Comey, filed a motion asserting the 120-day rule must be enforced as written.
The Justice Department defended the indictments in court filings, pointing to 18 U.S.C. 3288 and to Bondi’s Oct. 31 order retroactively designating Halligan a “special attorney” who was delegated authority to supervise the prosecutions. DOJ lawyers argued that even if a court finds Halligan’s appointment defective, the government could rely on the six-month refile provision in 3288 to preserve the Comey case brought just before the five-year statute of limitations expired.
Judge Currie’s presence — instead of a local Eastern District of Virginia judge — reflected effort to avoid potential intradistrict conflicts. The hearing explored both statutory text and practical consequences: defense lawyers emphasized the risk of executive overreach, while the government stressed the practical need to avoid letting defendants escape indictment on procedural grounds after limitations periods elapsed.
Analysis & Implications
Legally, this dispute tests tensions between statutory safeguards and prosecutorial continuity. The 120-day rule was designed to ensure that interim executive appointments do not supplant the Senate’s constitutional role; if courts allow an apparent restart of that clock by successive interim appointments or internal delegations, it could weaken that safeguard. Conversely, a strict reading that voids indictments signed by Halligan would trigger immediate questions about whether dismissals should be entered or whether prosecutors can cure flaws by refiling under 3288.
Practically, the stakes are high because of timing. The Comey indictment was unsealed days before the five-year limitations window would have closed, which is why DOJ emphasizes 18 U.S.C. 3288’s six-month reindictment window. If a court voids the indictment and 3288 applies, prosecutors could refile within six months; if 3288 is held inapplicable, the government could lose the opportunity to prosecute Comey on that charge.
Politically, the proceedings are likely to reverberate. The cases involve high-profile figures who have featured prominently in partisan discourse, and the appointment controversy amplifies concerns about politicization of prosecutions. A ruling for the defense could energize critics who say the executive branch used interim appointments to pursue political targets; a ruling for the government could prompt calls for clearer statutory fixes from Congress to prevent perceived procedural gaps.
Comparison & Data
| Defendant | Charge | Statute of Limitations | Indictment/Action Date |
|---|---|---|---|
| James Comey | False statement to Congress | 5 years | Indictment unsealed late Sept. 2025 (days before limitations) |
| Letitia James | Bank fraud | 10 years | Indictment filed Sept. 2025 |
| Erik Siebert | Resigned as interim U.S. Attorney | N/A | Resigned Sept. 19, 2025 |
| Lindsey Halligan | Sworn in as interim U.S. Attorney | 120-day interim limit under statute | Sworn Sept. 22, 2025; Bondi order Oct. 31, 2025 |
The table clarifies deadlines and dates relevant to the appointment dispute. Statutory mechanics — 120 days for interim service and a six-month reindictment window under 18 U.S.C. 3288 — are central to different litigation strategies.
Reactions & Quotes
President Trump publicly urged swift action against several critics in text posted on Truth Social prior to the indictments; that public pressure is part of the context defense teams cite when arguing for heightened scrutiny of the appointment process.
“WE CAN’T DELAY ANY LONGER, IT’S KILLING OUR REPUTATION AND CREDIBILITY … JUSTICE MUST BE SERVED, NOW!!!”
President Donald Trump (Truth Social post, Sept. 20, 2025)
Defense counsel highlighted statutory text in court filings, arguing that permitting consecutive interim appointments would nullify Congress’s limit. The government, by contrast, emphasized statutory rescue provisions and internal delegation steps intended to preserve prosecutorial authority.
“If the Attorney General could make back-to-back sequential appointments … the 120-day period would be rendered meaningless,”
Patrick Fitzgerald (motion for Comey)
“Whenever an indictment … is dismissed after the period prescribed by the statute of limitations has expired, a new indictment may be returned within six months,”
18 U.S.C. 3288 (statutory text cited by DOJ)
Unconfirmed
- Whether a court will find Bondi’s Oct. 31 retroactive order sufficient to cure any appointment defect remains unresolved and was a central contested issue at the hearing.
- The precise impact of any judicial ruling on potential re-filing under 18 U.S.C. 3288 — and whether it will apply in each case — is not yet decided.
- Bar complaints against Halligan are pending administrative review; their outcomes and any professional discipline are not yet determined.
Bottom Line
The Alexandria hearing could set a consequential precedent on the limits of interim appointments and the government’s ability to sustain high-profile prosecutions when procedural flaws are alleged. A decision for the defense would raise immediate questions about whether dismissed charges may be re-filed under 18 U.S.C. 3288, while a decision for the government would likely reduce the immediate incentive for congressional or judicial fixes to the interim-appointment framework.
For observers, the case underscores how statutory technicalities intersect with politics and timing. Congress, courts and the Justice Department may all face pressure to clarify appointment procedures and limits if successive challenges produce conflicting outcomes across districts.