A federal judge in Alexandria, Virginia, is set to hear arguments on Thursday regarding the legal challenges to the appointment of Lindsey Halligan as interim U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia. This appointment has come under scrutiny as two prominent figures—former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James—fight against charges brought by the Justice Department against them.
Lawyers for Comey and James argue that Halligan was illegally appointed, claiming this undermines the legitimacy of the indictments against their clients. The challenges are part of a broader strategy aiming to have the cases dismissed before they reach trial.
Legal Context of the Appointment
The arguments presented on Thursday will delve into the complex constitutional and statutory frameworks that govern the appointment of U.S. attorneys, who serve as the top federal prosecutors across the United States. Typically, these positions are filled by lawyers nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate. However, attorneys general do have the authority to appoint interim U.S. attorneys for a limited duration of 120 days.
Once this interim period expires, the law stipulates that federal judges in that district have exclusive authority to appoint a permanent replacement. The defense contends that this procedure was not followed after Erik Siebert, the former interim U.S. attorney, resigned in September 2023. Siebert’s departure came amidst pressure from the Trump administration to pursue charges against both Comey and James.
Following Siebert’s resignation, Attorney General Pam Bondi, acting on public urging from Donald Trump, appointed Halligan. Siebert had been nominated by Bondi earlier in the year, and judges in the Eastern District had supported his retention after the initial 120-day term. The defense maintains that the Justice Department’s subsequent interim appointment violated legal protocols, as the courts should have intervened to fill the vacancy.
Prosecution’s Position
The prosecution argues that the law does not explicitly prohibit successive interim appointments by the Justice Department. They assert that even if Halligan’s appointment were ruled invalid, it would not warrant the dismissal of the indictments against Comey and James. Comey faces charges of making false statements and obstructing Congress, while James is charged with mortgage fraud.
Both defendants have pleaded not guilty to their respective charges. Their legal teams argue that the prosecutions are driven by personal animosity from Trump towards their clients, characterizing the case as vindictive and politically motivated. This narrative adds another layer of complexity as the judge prepares to weigh the arguments on Thursday.
The outcome of this hearing could have significant implications for both Comey and James as they navigate the legal challenges posed by the Justice Department. As the situation unfolds, the constitutional interpretation of U.S. attorney appointments remains a focal point in these high-profile cases.