Judge Issues Deadline for Comey and James Cases in Halligan Hearing
A federal judge is poised to rule before Thanksgiving on a pivotal question that could impact two high-profile prosecutions: whether Lindsey Halligan is lawfully serving as U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia. The cases involve former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James, both of whom are seeking dismissal of indictments they claim are politically motivated.
Dispute Over Halligan’s Appointment
On Thursday, Judge Cameron McGowan Currie, a Clinton appointee, heard arguments from attorneys for Comey and James, who contend that Halligan’s appointment violated federal law. They argue that Halligan was installed as U.S. attorney after the previous interim’s 120-day term expired, bypassing the statutory requirement that district judges fill such vacancies once that window closes.
The Justice Department, represented in court, countered that even if Halligan’s appointment was procedurally improper, the indictments against Comey and James should stand. Prosecutors characterized the appointment issue as a “paperwork error,” according to CNN’s reporting, and asserted that the law does not prohibit consecutive interim appointments.
Missing Grand Jury Minutes and Trial Dates
Judge Currie also noted irregularities in the grand jury process, observing that minutes were missing from the transcript in Comey’s case after a court reporter stopped taking notes. Both cases are tentatively scheduled for trial in January, according to Newsweek.
Allegations of Political Prosecution
Comey and James argue that they are being prosecuted by President Donald Trump’s Justice Department for political reasons, not actual misconduct. Their attorneys claim that Trump’s appointee, Halligan, was installed to pursue partisan indictments against them.
The controversy traces back to the resignation of interim U.S. Attorney Erik Siebert in September, reportedly under pressure from the Trump administration to bring charges against Comey and James. Siebert had been appointed by Attorney General Pam Bondi in January, and after his 120-day term expired, district judges unanimously agreed he should continue in the role. However, after Siebert’s forced departure, Bondi appointed Halligan as interim U.S. attorney, a move defense lawyers say lacked legal authority.
Constitutional and Statutory Rules at Issue
At the heart of Thursday’s hearing were the rules governing the appointment of U.S. attorneys. Normally, the president nominates a candidate who is then confirmed by the Senate. The attorney general may appoint an interim U.S. attorney for up to 120 days, but after that period, federal law gives district judges the authority to fill the vacancy.
Defense attorneys argued that the government’s interpretation of the law could allow anyone—even public figures like Steve Bannon or Elon Musk—to seek indictments and then be retroactively appointed as U.S. attorney, undermining the integrity of the process.
Halligan’s Credentials and Trump’s Endorsement
President Trump publicly praised Lindsey Halligan when appointing her, writing on Truth Social that she is “a tough, smart, and loyal attorney,” who has worked with him on several high-profile cases, including the legal battle over the Mar-a-Lago search and the so-called “Democrat Documents Hoax.” Trump touted Halligan’s success as a trial lawyer and her loyalty during what he described as “Unconstitutional and UnAmerican” attacks by political opponents.
What’s Next?
Judge Currie’s decision, expected before Thanksgiving, will determine whether Halligan’s appointment stands—and, by extension, whether the indictments against Comey and James move forward. The outcome could set a significant precedent for how interim U.S. attorneys are appointed and the extent to which procedural errors impact federal prosecutions.
As both sides await the ruling, the cases remain a flashpoint in the ongoing debate over the politicization of the Justice Department and the rule of law in high-stakes federal prosecutions.
