Judge to Weigh Challenge to Prosecutor’s Appointment in Cases Against James Comey and Letitia James

Judge to Hear Challenge Over Interim U.S. Attorney’s Appointment

Lawyers for former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James will ask a federal judge on Thursday to dismiss indictments against their clients, arguing that the prosecutor who secured the charges was unlawfully installed as interim U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia.

The dispute centers on Lindsey Halligan’s appointment and the layered constitutional and statutory rules that govern how U.S. attorneys are named. Normally, U.S. attorneys are nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate. The attorney general may appoint an interim U.S. attorney for up to 120 days, after which federal district judges in that district are statutorily empowered to select someone to fill the vacancy.

According to defense filings, the 120-day interim period expired for then-interim U.S. attorney Erik Siebert, and the district’s judges had agreed he should remain in the role. Siebert resigned in September amid reported pressure from the Trump administration to pursue charges against Comey and James. The Justice Department, at the public urging of President Trump and through then-Attorney General Pam Bondi, subsequently appointed Halligan as an interim replacement rather than permitting the court to fill the vacancy — a move defense attorneys say exceeded the department’s statutory authority.

Prosecutors counter that the statute does not explicitly forbid the Justice Department from making successive interim appointments, and they argue that even if Halligan’s appointment is later found invalid, dismissal of the indictments would not necessarily be the correct remedy. The government says other corrective steps are available under the law.

Charges and claims: Comey has pleaded not guilty to counts of making a false statement and obstructing Congress. Letitia James has pleaded not guilty to mortgage-fraud allegations. Both defense teams have separately argued the prosecutions are improperly vindictive and driven by President Trump’s personal animus.

The hearing will focus on complex constitutional and statutory questions about appointment power, separation of powers, and appropriate remedies if an appointment is found to be defective. Its outcome could affect whether the cases proceed to trial and could have broader implications for how interim U.S. attorneys are installed.