Federal court rules interim prosecutor unlawfully appointed, marking major victory for former FBI director and New York attorney general, and defeat for Trump
A federal judge delivered a major blow to the Justice Department on Monday by dismissing criminal charges against former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James, ruling that the prosecutor who brought the indictments lacked legal authority to do so.
U.S. District Judge Cameron Currie found that Lindsey Halligan, the interim prosecutor for the Eastern District of Virginia who secured both indictments, was unlawfully appointed to her position. The ruling represents a significant victory for Comey and James, who have both characterized their prosecutions as politically motivated retaliation orchestrated by President Trump against his perceived enemies.
The judge ordered both indictments dismissed without prejudice, theoretically allowing prosecutors to pursue the charges again. However, Currie noted that the statute of limitations for the offenses alleged against Comey expired at the end of September, likely preventing any future prosecution in his case. Attorney General Pam Bondi announced the Justice Department would immediately appeal the rulings.
The legal framework at issue
Currie’s decisions centered on technical but crucial questions about how federal law governs temporary appointments of U.S. attorneys. She determined that Halligan’s appointment violated both Section 546, the federal statute governing such vacancies, and the Constitution’s Appointments Clause.
The judge’s interpretation of Section 546 proved decisive. According to Currie’s reading of the law, the attorney general’s power to name an interim prosecutor lasts only 120 days total from when that authority is first invoked after a Senate confirmed prosecutor departs. Once that period expires, the power to make further interim appointments shifts exclusively to the district court until the Senate confirms a presidential nominee.
This framework matters because it prevents the executive branch from circumventing the Senate confirmation process indefinitely by stacking consecutive 120 day appointments. The judge found that Attorney General Bondi’s appointment of Halligan violated this structure because the 120 day clock had already run out with Halligan’s predecessor.
Timeline of the appointments
The Eastern District of Virginia position became vacant when Erik Siebert abruptly left the post amid concerns about pressure to prosecute James. Siebert had initially been appointed in January to serve for 120 days. Before his term expired, the federal court exercised its authority under the law to keep him in the role.
After Siebert departed in September, Bondi appointed Halligan under Section 546 in what the government characterized as a fresh 120 day appointment. The administration argued that each new appointment triggers its own separate clock. But Currie rejected this interpretation, finding that Halligan had been unlawfully serving as interim prosecutor since September 22.
Halligan, a former insurance lawyer who had defended Trump in one of the criminal cases brought by former special counsel Jack Smith, moved quickly after taking the position. She secured an indictment against Comey on September 25 accusing him of lying to Congress and obstructing a congressional proceeding. In early October, she obtained charges against James for bank fraud.
The retroactive fix that failed
Anticipating potential problems with Halligan’s appointment, the Justice Department tried a creative solution. Bondi issued an October order purporting to retroactively name Halligan as a special attorney and ratify all her previous actions before grand juries.
Government lawyers argued that even if Halligan’s appointment as interim prosecutor was invalid, any government attorney can present cases to grand juries or sign indictments, and the attorney general has authority to designate special attorneys. But Currie firmly rejected this attempted workaround.
The judge wrote that the Justice Department provided no authority allowing the attorney general to reach back in time and rewrite the terms of past appointments. She also noted the troubling implications of accepting such logic, observing that it would theoretically allow the government to send any private citizen into a grand jury room to secure indictments as long as the attorney general approved afterward.
Broader pattern of appointment problems
The rulings against Halligan fit into a larger pattern. Three different federal judges have found that temporary prosecutors installed by the Trump administration in New Jersey, Nevada and Los Angeles were serving unlawfully. The repeated judicial rejections suggest systemic problems with how the administration has handled interim prosecutor appointments.
Both Comey and James have pending motions arguing their prosecutions should be dismissed on additional grounds beyond the appointment issue, including claims that the charges represent vindictive and selective prosecution. Those arguments remain unresolved.
Despite the setback, Bondi told reporters that the ruling would not affect Halligan’s role going forward and that the Justice Department believes it will prevail on appeal. The administration’s determination to continue these prosecutions ensures the legal battles will extend well beyond Monday’s rulings.