Judge Sets Out Deadline For Comey, James Cases During Halligan Hearing
A Clinton-appointed federal judge signaled Thursday that she will decide before Thanksgiving whether U.S. Attorney Lindsey Halligan is lawfully serving in her post — a ruling that could shape two of the most politically explosive prosecutions in the country. Judge Cameron McGowan Currie heard arguments from attorneys for former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James, who are scrambling to get their indictments thrown out on procedural grounds.
Their lawyers insist Halligan’s appointment is invalid because the previous interim U.S. attorney’s 120-day term had expired before she was installed. In their view, that lapse means only the district’s judges — not the Department of Justice — had the authority to select a replacement.
The Justice Department, pushing back sharply, argued that even if Halligan’s appointment were technically flawed, it would amount to nothing more than a “paperwork error,” CNN reported from inside the courtroom. Under the department’s position, such an error would not justify tossing the indictments.
But the hearing grew more complicated after CNN reported that Judge Currie flagged missing minutes from the Comey grand jury transcript, apparently due to a court reporter who stopped taking notes. Trials in both the Comey and James cases remain tentatively set for January, according to Newsweek.
At stake is far more than a procedural dispute. Comey and James have accused President Donald Trump’s Justice Department — and by extension Halligan — of prosecuting them for political reasons. Each claims the charges stem not from misconduct, but from the administration’s efforts to restore accountability after years of partisan lawfare waged by powerful Democratic officials.
Central to Thursday’s arguments were the constitutional and statutory rules governing how U.S. attorneys are appointed. Normally, presidents nominate and the Senate confirms. The attorney general may name an interim U.S. attorney, but only for 120 days. After that, the authority shifts to the judges of the district.
According to defense lawyers, that transition never happened.
The dispute began after interim U.S. Attorney Erik Siebert resigned in September under pressure from the Trump administration to move forward with the high-profile cases against Comey and James. Attorney General Pam Bondi then appointed Lindsey Halligan, acting at the president’s public urging.
Siebert was first named interim U.S. attorney in January by Bondi, and when his 120-day term expired, the district’s judges unanimously agreed he should continue in the role. But when he stepped down in September, the Justice Department installed Halligan without returning the appointment authority to the court — a step Comey and James say was required by law.
Prosecutors counter that nothing in federal statute prevents consecutive interim appointments and that—even should Halligan’s appointment be deemed technically improper—the indictments should stand, Newsweek added.
Defense attorney Abbe Lowell, representing James, argued Thursday that the administration’s reading of the law would effectively allow any private individual — even high-profile figures such as Steve Bannon or Elon Musk — to secure a grand jury indictment first and then simply be retroactively designated as a U.S. attorney. Lowell warned such a loophole would undermine the rule of law.
President Trump, for his part, has stood firmly behind Halligan, lauding her credentials and loyalty in a Sept. 20 Truth Social post.
“Lindsey is a tough, smart, and loyal attorney, who has worked with me for a long time, including in the winning fight against the Weaponization of our Justice System by Crooked Joe Biden and the Radical Left Democrats, which she witnessed firsthand when she stood up for my rights during the Unconstitutional and UnAmerican raid on my home, Mar-a-Lago, in Palm Beach, Florida. As a Partner at the biggest Law Firm in Florida, Lindsey proved herself to be a tremendous trial lawyer, and later represented me (and WON!) in the disgraceful Democrat Documents Hoax, as well as MANY other major, high profile cases.”
The judge’s upcoming ruling now stands at the center of one of the most consequential legal battles of the year — one that will determine whether Comey and James must finally face accountability in court, or whether procedural technicalities can shield them from trial.