Lawyers representing former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James are set to challenge the legitimacy of the prosecutor who charged them, arguing that the appointment of Lindsey Halligan as interim U.S. attorney was unlawful. This legal battle is unfolding in a federal court in Alexandria, Virginia, where a judge will hear arguments on the matter on October 5, 2023.
The core of the dispute revolves around the constitutional and statutory regulations that govern the appointment of U.S. attorneys. Typically, these positions are filled by individuals nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate. Under certain circumstances, state attorneys general can appoint an interim U.S. attorney to serve for a limited period of 120 days. Once that term has expired, federal judges in the district have exclusive authority over the selection of a permanent replacement.
In this instance, Erik Siebert, who had been appointed as interim U.S. attorney, resigned in September 2023 amid pressure from the Trump administration to pursue charges against Comey and James. Following his resignation, Pam Bondi, the Attorney General at the time, appointed Halligan to fill the position at the behest of Donald Trump. This action has raised concerns among defense attorneys, who argue that the Justice Department overstepped its legal authority.
The controversy deepened when a unanimous agreement from judges in the Eastern District of Virginia after Siebert’s interim period concluded indicated he should continue in his role. Despite this, the Justice Department’s decision to appoint Halligan has been called into question. Defense attorneys assert that Halligan’s interim status violates the law, and they are seeking to have the indictments against their clients dismissed as a result.
Prosecutors contend that the law does not explicitly prohibit successive appointments of interim U.S. attorneys. They argue that even if Halligan’s appointment is deemed invalid, dismissing the indictment would not be the appropriate remedy. Comey has pleaded not guilty to accusations of making a false statement and obstructing Congress, while James has denied allegations of mortgage fraud.
Both Comey and James’s legal teams assert that the charges against them are politically motivated and driven by Trump’s personal animosity. The outcome of this legal challenge could have significant implications not just for their individual cases, but also for the procedural legitimacy of appointments within the Justice Department.
As the legal proceedings unfold, the arguments presented in court will likely hinge on interpretations of the law and the authority of federal prosecutors. The implications of this case extend beyond the immediate concerns of Comey and James, reflecting broader questions about the integrity of the judicial process in politically charged environments.
