Comey, Letitia James Seek Dismissal Over Prosecutor Halligan’s Appointment/ Newslooks/ WASHINGTON/ J. Mansour/ Morning Edition/ A federal judge will hear arguments challenging the legality of a Justice Department prosecutor’s appointment in high-profile cases against James Comey and Letitia James. Defense attorneys argue the interim U.S. attorney was improperly installed after a previous appointment expired. The motion seeks to dismiss the indictments, citing constitutional violations and political interference.
Prosecutor Appointment in Question: Quick Looks
- Federal judge to hear motion challenging Lindsey Halligan’s role
- Halligan charged Trump critics James Comey, Letitia James
- Defense: DOJ illegally bypassed court in naming U.S. attorney
- Former U.S. attorney Erik Siebert forced out under pressure
- Law grants courts—not DOJ—authority after 120-day term
- DOJ argues successive interim appointments not explicitly barred
- Comey, James plead not guilty, claim political targeting
- Attorneys say prosecution driven by Trump’s personal vendettas
Comey, Letitia James Seek Dismissal Over Prosecutor Halligan’s Appointment by Trump DOJ
Deep Look
ALEXANDRIA, Va. — The legal battles surrounding the high-profile prosecutions of former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James took a new turn Thursday as a federal judge prepared to hear arguments over whether the prosecutor who charged them was unlawfully appointed.
At the center of the dispute is Lindsey Halligan, who currently serves as interim U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia. Lawyers for Comey and James are seeking to have the cases dismissed, asserting that Halligan’s appointment violated federal law and constitutional procedure.
Comey and James, both political opponents of President Donald Trump, were indicted earlier this year by the Justice Department under Halligan’s leadership. Comey faces charges of making false statements and obstructing Congress, while James is charged with mortgage fraud. Both have pleaded not guilty.
Defense attorneys argue that Halligan’s appointment came only after the Trump administration pressured then-acting U.S. attorney Erik Siebert to resign. Siebert had been serving in an interim capacity since January, appointed by Attorney General Pam Bondi. After his 120-day term expired, federal law required that any vacancy be filled by a vote of district court judges in that jurisdiction.
In fact, the judges of the Eastern District of Virginia had unanimously agreed to retain Siebert. However, following his resignation in September—reportedly under political pressure from the Trump administration—Bondi again installed an interim prosecutor, naming Halligan without court approval. According to defense teams, that action exceeded the Justice Department’s authority.
Under U.S. law, the attorney general may appoint an interim U.S. attorney, but only for 120 days. After that, the power to appoint shifts to federal judges within the district. The defense argues that by installing Halligan a second time through executive action, the Justice Department circumvented this statutory framework and effectively sidelined judicial oversight.
“Once that initial 120-day period ends, the courts—not the executive branch—are responsible for ensuring continuity and legitimacy in these critical roles,” Comey’s legal team stated in its motion.
Prosecutors, however, reject the claim that the Justice Department acted improperly. They argue that the statute governing interim appointments does not explicitly prohibit multiple or successive interim designations. Even if Halligan’s appointment were invalidated, they claim, it should not invalidate the indictments themselves.
“The proper remedy, if the appointment is deemed flawed, is not dismissal of charges,” the prosecution asserted in its written response. “The grand jury’s function and the evidence underpinning the indictments remain intact.”
Beyond the appointment issue, both Comey and James allege that their prosecutions are politically motivated. Their legal teams have filed separate motions asserting that President Trump’s public attacks and private influence over the Justice Department demonstrate that the cases are acts of political retaliation rather than neutral enforcement of the law.
Comey’s attorneys pointed to Trump’s repeated attempts to discredit him over the FBI’s handling of the Russia investigation. James, who has led high-profile investigations into Trump’s business practices and public conduct, has likewise become a frequent target of presidential criticism.
Attorney General Bondi’s involvement in the appointments process has also come under scrutiny. After Trump publicly encouraged swift legal action against Comey and James earlier this year, Bondi removed Siebert and installed Halligan. Critics say this move indicates executive overreach and improper influence on prosecutorial discretion.
The Eastern District of Virginia, known for handling sensitive national cases, has now become the venue for a legal and constitutional showdown that could reshape how U.S. attorneys are appointed and removed. Thursday’s hearing marks a critical stage in what could become a precedent-setting challenge to Justice Department authority and presidential influence over prosecutorial power.
The judge presiding over the hearing is expected to weigh not only the legality of Halligan’s appointment but also the broader implications of allowing politically charged cases to proceed under contested authority.
Whether the court finds that Halligan’s role was improperly filled could determine if the cases against Comey and James move forward — or collapse entirely due to procedural flaws and constitutional violations.
You must Register or Login to post a comment.