In a renewed effort to salvage high-profile indictments, the Justice Department on Monday filed an appeal defending Attorney General Pam Bondi's appointment of Lindsey Halligan as an interim U.S. attorney, challenging a federal judge's decision to dismiss criminal cases against former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James.
The 67-page filing, submitted to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, argues that U.S. District Judge Cameron Currie erred in her November ruling when she voided the indictments based on Halligan's allegedly unlawful appointment. According to the document, Currie's decision improperly stripped the Attorney General of her constitutional authority to appoint prosecutors and overstepped the judiciary's role in executive functions.
Halligan, a former personal lawyer to President Donald Trump, was tapped by Bondi to replace Erik Siebert as U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia. Siebert, who had not been confirmed by the Senate within the required 120-day period, resigned amid reported pressure to pursue the cases against Comey and James. Lawyers for the defendants contended that federal judges in the Eastern District of Virginia should have selected the replacement under the law, a position Currie ultimately endorsed in her ruling.
Currie determined that Halligan's appointment violated the 120-day interim limit for unconfirmed U.S. attorneys, rendering her the sole prosecutor involved in presenting the cases to grand juries and signing the indictments. As a result, the judge dismissed the charges, stating that the indictments were invalid due to this procedural flaw.
Justice Department attorney Henry Whitaker, in the appeal filing, countered that the core issue is not the technicalities of Halligan's appointment but whether Bondi authorized her to represent the United States in the proceedings. "The answer is plainly yes," Whitaker wrote, emphasizing that Bondi's initial order, despite citing an erroneous statute, was a mere "paperwork mistake" that did not prejudice the defendants.
Whitaker further argued that subsequent orders from Bondi ratified Halligan's actions, including her role before the grand juries and her signature on the indictments. "Even if that paperwork mistake was legal error, it was not one that prejudiced defendants; and it has in any event been cured several times over by Attorney General orders ratifying Halligan’s actions before the grand juries and her signature on the indictments," he stated in the filing.
The appeal also stresses that the indictments were issued by grand juries, not directly by Halligan. "The grand juries’ indictments should not be invalidated based on Halligan’s purportedly unlawful appointment when there is no colorable basis to conclude that their decisions would have been any different had the defect in title been cured," Whitaker wrote. He described Currie's ruling as one that "ousts the Attorney General of her appointment authority" and mistakenly expands the district court's powers at the expense of the Executive Branch.
Comey faces charges of making a false statement and obstructing a congressional proceeding, while James is accused of mortgage-related fraud. Both defendants have pleaded not guilty and maintain their innocence. Their legal teams argued successfully before Currie that the appointment process invalidated the proceedings, but NBC News reports that the Justice Department has reached out to them for comment on the latest appeal, with no immediate response available.
The cases stem from a broader push by the Trump administration to investigate political adversaries. President Trump has publicly urged the Justice Department to probe figures like Comey, whom he has criticized for his handling of the Russia investigation during his FBI tenure, and James, a Democrat who has led multiple lawsuits against Trump's business and policies. This appeal comes amid similar scrutiny of other Trump associates, including a case against former national security adviser John Bolton for allegedly mishandling classified materials; Bolton has also pleaded not guilty and denied wrongdoing.
Background on the appointments reveals tensions within the Justice Department. Siebert's resignation followed reported resistance to prosecuting Comey and James, leading Bondi to appoint Halligan on an interim basis. The initial order from Bondi cited a statute that Currie later ruled did not grant authority for Halligan to pursue these specific indictments, a point Whitaker dismissed as curable through ratification.
Efforts to revive the James case have faltered previously. According to NBC News reporting, the Justice Department failed twice to secure new indictments against her after the initial dismissal, highlighting challenges in navigating the legal hurdles posed by the appointment dispute. The Comey case, similarly tossed out, now hinges on this appeal to potentially reinstate the charges.
The Eastern District of Virginia, known for its fast-paced docket and proximity to Washington, D.C., has been a key venue for such politically charged prosecutions. The 120-day rule, part of the Federal Vacancies Reform Act, aims to prevent prolonged interim appointments without Senate oversight, a safeguard that defense lawyers leveraged effectively in the district court.
As the appeal progresses, legal experts note the broader implications for executive authority in prosecutions. Whitaker's filing underscores the constitutional balance, arguing that invalidating indictments over appointment technicalities undermines the Executive Branch's role in enforcing federal law. Meanwhile, Comey and James' teams have portrayed the cases as politically motivated, though they have not yet commented on the Monday filing.
Looking ahead, the Fourth Circuit's decision could set precedents for interim appointments and the validity of indictments in contested political environments. If the appeal succeeds, it might expedite retries for Comey and James; a loss could further complicate the Justice Department's strategy against Trump's perceived opponents. The department continues to pursue the Bolton case unabated, signaling no retreat from its investigative agenda.
This development arrives as the Trump administration marks its early months, with Bondi, a former Florida attorney general and Trump ally, steering the Justice Department through a landscape of high-stakes legal battles. The outcome of this appeal may influence not only these specific cases but also the boundaries of prosecutorial authority in an era of polarized politics.