Judge Disqualifies Interim U.S. Attorney, Dismisses Comey, James Cases
The judge dismissed the cases without prejudice, which means the DOJ can refile the charges
U.S. District Judge Cameron Currie disqualified interim Lindsey Halligan of the Eastern District of Virginia.
The disqualification led to Currie dismissing criminal cases against former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James.
Comey was indicted for obstruction of proceedings (18 U.S. Code § 1505) related to the Trump-Russia investigation.
James was indicted for bank fraud (18 U.S. Code § 1344) and making false statements to a financial institution (18 U.S. Code § 1014) regarding alleged mortgage fraud.
James accused President Donald Trump of violating Section 546 of Title 28 and the Appointments Clause by appointing Halligan.
In sum, the text, structure, and history of section 546 point to one conclusion: the Attorney General’s authority to appoint an interim U.S. Attorney lasts for a total of 120 days from the date she first invokes section 546 after the departure of a Senate-confirmed U.S. Attorney. If the position remains vacant at the end of the 120-day period, the exclusive authority to make further interim appointments under the statute shifts to the district court, where it remains until the President’s nominee is confirmed by the Senate.
Ms. Halligan was not appointed in a manner consistent with this framework. The 120-day clock began running with Mr. Siebert’s appointment on January 21, 2025. When that clock expired on May 21, 2025, so too did the Attorney General’s appointment authority. Consequently, I conclude that the Attorney General’s attempt to install Ms. Halligan as Interim U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia was invalid and that Ms. Halligan has been unlawfully serving in that role since September 22, 2025.
The judge said that, since Halligan has been unlawfully serving since September, her appointment violates the Appointments Clause.
“And here Ms. Halligan has not been appointed (1) by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate or (2) through a process Congress has authorized ‘by statute,'” stated Currie.
Currie added:
I have already concluded that Ms. Halligan’s original appointment was invalid and that the Attorney General’s attempt to retroactively bestow Special Attorney status on her was ineffective. As a result, the Attorney General “could not have authorized” Ms. Halligan, who was not an attorney for the Government at the time, to present Ms. James’s indictment to the grand jury on October 9. Restatement (Second) of Agency, supra, § 84(2) (stating that if “the purported or intended principal could not have authorized” the challenged “act” when it was “done,” “he cannot ratify” it). The implications of a contrary conclusion are extraordinary. It would mean the Government could send any private citizen off the street — attorney or not — into the grand jury room to secure an indictment so long as the Attorney General gives her approval after the fact. That cannot be the law.
Currie dismissed the cases without prejudice, which means the DOJ can refile the charges.
However, the statute of limitations expired in the Comey case in September.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
This is the fault of the Republican controlled Senate. They are allowing the demonrats to obstruct President Trumps ability to appoint and confirm his choices for AG’s. The rino’s are helping the demonrats against the President. You can’t hate the uniparty enough.
An “AG” is an attorney general.
America would certainly benefit if she were to sever the thumbs that keep fiddling with the scale of justice. If not, the balance MUST be restored by good men performing the bad act that government refuses to do.
As long as the Senate allows home state Senators to control judicial and U.S. Attorney appointments by the blue slip procedure, what party holds the majority is immaterial.
“The judge dismissed the cases without prejudice, which means the DOJ can refile the charges”
Good. I hope they get this fixed ASAP.
I blame Senator Thune for dragging his feet on appointments.
It won’t work on Comey…he will skate due to statue of limitations and claim he’s vindicated.
Not true at all. The government has 6 months to obtain a new indictment under 18 U.S.C. § 3288.
Thanks for providing a citation to that section of 18 U.S.C. It’s good to know Comey won’t skate — at least not under the statute of limitations — as long as the Administration can manage to indict him again in 6 months.
He has already claimed vindication and released another over-the-top cringe video spewing the usual BS about he always supported rule of law, blah blah blah. UGH UGH UGH.
“Currie dismissed the cases without prejudice, which means the DOJ can refile the charges.”
But aren’t some of these hovering dangerously near (or even over by now) the statute of limitations?
I’m reading elsewhere that this is egg on Trump’s face and the usual litany of insults and accusations.
Fortunately here we learn the dismissal without prejudice (thank you) which means that once a valid U.S. Attorney is in place, the charges can and will be refiled.
Which means that the next prosecutor may be the kind of attorney that eats broken glass for breakfast just to keep himself mellow.
Should have *started* with that sort of prosecutor. These cases are important and it’s almost like they handed the opposition a bunch of outs–they cannot have not known the libtards would play the lawfare game.
Well in fairness there’s a good argument this situation is ‘egg on Trump’s face’. He appointed Eric Seibert in January to serve as interim US Attorney for Eastern District of VA. Then in May nominated him to fill the same position. Seibert served in the position until late September and oversaw the investigations.
In September Trump fired him, claiming he found out that Seibert had support from d/prog Senators but Seibert also didn’t want to pursue the high profile case against Comey which is probably the real reason. Especially since the two US Senators from Virginia Mark Warren and Tim Kaine both d/prog whose support Trump was referencing had very publicly put out a joint statement endorsing and expressing support for Seibert’s nomination way back in May.
Subsequently the kurfluffle of the replacement arose with Trump taking too long and allowing the obscure procedure for the Judges of the Circuit to make a temporary appointment. Then DoJ fired the replacement and Trump/DoJ appointed Halligan who has now been declared to have serving unlawfully as interim US Attorney for EDVA b/c the DoJ lacked the authority to do so.
All in all given the entire context much of the blame for the mismanagement of the Comey prosecution falls on the AG hand selected by Trump and on Trump himself. Sure there’s slow walking in the Senate but the guy Trump nominated and appointed as interim US Attorney didn’t want to pursue the case against Comey…. that’s not got jack squat to do with slow walking nominations by the d/prog in the Senate.
The administration is correct, if we want to go by the statute. The statute says “(a) Except as provided in subsection (b), the Attorney General may appoint a United States attorney for the district in which the office of United States attorney is vacant.” The office was vacant on 9/18/25 when Siebert resigned. Thus the AG was statutorily entitled to appoint Halligan, who was not within the (b) exception. What is so complicated here?
Except the Admin via AG didn’t appoint her as interim/acting US Attorney. Instead they made her a ‘special’ Attorney and then delegated the duties/responsibilities that are normally performed by the US Attorney for Eastern District VA.
Plus they did it retroactively. This at minimum implies the Admin knew they couldn’t simply appoint her as interim US Attorney EDVA.
No, all that would mean (assuming this relation of events is accurate) is that there are multiple pathways for the government to have authorized her to legally function to obtain an indictment. But having art. III courts determine that only they really don’t like the executive’s choice is most definitely not a result that avoids a statutory or constitutional conflict.
Sigh, yeah Trump should have handled things better. It doesn’t excuse the out of control b.s. uniparty’s shenanigans. How infuriating this getting!
Infuriating and utterly depressing if sleazy Comey gets off untouched as it appears he will.
Statute of Limitations has expired for Comey. He walks. Thank the US Senate Repubs for slow walking needed prosecutors.
Shouldn’t the original indictment stop that clock?
Probably not, as it was illegally obtained and therefore void.
It’s ridiculous to start a statute of limitations when the wrongful act has not with reasonable care been discovered.
Let’s hope the grand conspiracy case comes soon, which picks up the Comey behavior.
Ironic how they so loudly pretend no one is above the law, until it’s them.
Catherine Herridge did an interview that sheds light on Saint Comey and his pristine conduct.
https://x.com/C__Herridge/status/1992732402339209421
The entire idea that a criminal can skate if a crime can be concealed beyond a certain date is anti-justice. This isn’t even a case in which the crime was known but the criminal hadn’t been identified. It was impossible to indict Comey until evidence surfaced that demonstrated with some credibility that a crime had even been committed (although it was suspected, “suspicion” won’t carry an indictment and prosecution). Certain types of crime (e.g., fraud) lend themselves to remaining entirely undiscovered (and are, in fact, so structured by their perpetrators so that they remain undiscovered). There appears to be no allowance for this in the statutes.
Are the limits meant to assure a “speedy trial”? If so, how can a speedy trial, or any trial for that matter, be conducted before a crime is discovered/made apparent? Conduct of a speedy trial can’t possibly occur until after the crime is exposed! Even an investigation immediately after Comey’s testimony wouldn’t necessarily have exposed the crime, so it can’t even be claimed with certainty that immediate action by investigators could have discovered the crime in a timely fashion.
Statute of limitations laws protect the innocent for darned good reason. The Carrol case (among many others) proves that extensively. A woman with no witnesses, no believable story, no evidence, accuses somebody of a crime sometime in the past, far beyond the normal statute of limitations except for a little hokey-pokey in the legislature to magically move those goalposts. She states no date for the alleged event, then moves the date around when proof comes out that the date and story clash. It is practically impossible to defend against pudding instead of hard facts, and time kills witness in your defense, and decays hard evidence of your innocence.
It’s what Austin called infelicitous conditions, like a marriage performed in a play. All the formalities are followed but it’s in the wrong context and isn’t a marriage.
Seriouosly, did anyone expect that cases against Leftist officials would actually be prosecuted?
Subotai Bahadur
The administration is correct. There is nothing in the law that precludes the AG from making another interim appointment if the district court appointed interim attorney doesn’t make it to the filling of the vacancy through Senate confirmation.
That’s it. Siebert was appointed by Bondi and before the 120 day limit was reappointed by the district court. But Siebert then quit before the vacancy was filled so there came a vacancy in that US attorney office. The law says nothing about the district court being allowed to appoint another interim US attorney and it doesn’t say anything disallowing the AG from appointing a new interim US attorney.
If the law had wanted the district court totally takje over the interim appointments after 120 days until filling then it woulod have stated that explicitly:
“(d)
If an appointment expires under subsection (c)(2), the district court for such district SHALL appoint United States attorneyS to serve until the vacancy is filled.”
Which brings up the other salient point, the law says “MAY appoint”, not “SHALL appoint”, which, itself, doesn’t preclude the AG from appointing another US attorney if the district court doesn’t.
The term ‘May’ gives the discretion of whether to perform the action while the term ‘Shall’ removes any discretion and requires the action. The discretion lay with the Judiciary and they decided to utilize it. The Trump Admin WH nomination folks and the Trump selected AG running DoJ bungled this.
The district court DID exercise its option when it reappointed Siebert in May. But when SIebert quit without the vacancy having been filled the circumstances do not allow the distrcit court to make another appointment. THat “may” only gave them ONE appointment, which they did. The power then reverted back to the AG when SIebert left.
That is how the law reads. Period.
Trump nominated Seibert in May to become the US Attorney for the Eastern District of VA.
Trump nominated SIebert on May 5th.. The district court appointed him to be interim attorney on May 9 – effective May 21 after the 120 window passed. (https://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/sites/vaed/files/Order%20of%20Appointment.pdf)
So what?
Once that position became vacant again Bondiu had the power to appoint a new interim US attorney, as per the law.
Sure that’s what the Admin is arguing but it didn’t convince the judge and doesn’t seem to make sense to me either. Once the interim lapses and there’s a vacancy then the statute gives the Judiciary the discretion ‘MAY’ make an interim selection to serve until there’s a Senate Confirmed Nominee.
What you and the admin are arguing is that the Judiciary can’t exercise the authority granted to them in the statute. If Congress wanted to allow perpetual interim appointments by AG they’d have provided foe that explicitly and wouldn’t have put in the discretion for a Judicial selection.
That’s ridiculous. I am arguing the plain and CLEAR language of the law. You seem to be having a problem with simple English.
The law says NOTHING about the district court having all power after the 120 days (“may”) and it also says NOTHING about the circumstance of the district court’s appointment not serving until the vacancy is filled. You are making that up in your head.
The law is very clear and I have explained what it said.
Commochief, section 546(d) is questionable enough as a violation of the separation of powers. Your interpretation puts the insult to separation of powers on steroids. Statutory interpretations should avoid constitutional conflicts, not cause them.
On page 9 of the idiot judge’s order:
That is COMPLETELY UNTRUE!!!
Section d provides ANOTHER way that an interim appointment can be made – “the district court for such district MAY appoint a United States attorney ”
The “may” applies to the decision of the district court. Without it exercising that option there is nothing precluding the AG from exercising this code once again to appoint another interim US attorney.
This judge doesn’t understand simple English and how the word “MAY” applies in section (d). “MAY” there implies an alternative, since the district court “MAY NOT” if it decides.
This is in addition to my argument above that this code only allows the district court one appointment and then the power returns to the AG if the vacancy still exists.
Further idiocy in the judge’s demented order,
<blockquoteSubsection (d) then provides a single option for how subsequent interim appointments may be made:>
Tjhe law says absolutely NOTHIGN of the sort. It only talks about ONE subsequent appointment. That’s what it says in black and white. It is impossible to to arrive at a plural out of
That is singular. Period. End of story. If they wanted the district court to handle all subsequent appointments for that position (or even just “may” ) then it would have been written that way. I mentioned this above but just wanted to stress how idiotic this judge is and how he makes up meaning in the law where it is not to be found, by any reading.
The other problem with your argument is that the AG/DoJ fully understood the limitations the Judge is arguing here and implicitly conceded their validity by trying to ‘end run’ this statute and appoint Halligan NOT as interim US Attorney but as a ‘Special Attorney’ then trying to delegate responsibilities/authority to act for the DoJ as if she were the interim US Attorney.
Added to this mess is AG Bondi/Trump Admin tried to do this retroactively to meet the cut off for the statute of limitations on the Comey matter.
IOW the AG/DoJ/Trump Admin knew this was gonna be a potential issue from the jump and proceeded anyway. At best they gambled and lost, at worst they bungled what is likely the final opportunity to ‘get Comey’. Either way it was poorly handled by the Admin.
I wish they had gotten a sold reputable prosecutor nominated and confirmed instead of allowing archaic tradition of ‘blue slips’ to stall/prevent nominees being considered confirmed. If it were me I’d have demanded the Senate Majority bundle every Judicial nominee into one list and rammed through passage the moment it appeared the d/prog were using parliamentary BS to stall confirmations. I’d have demanded it get done before the 4th of July recess…but that’s not what occurred and here we are.
How to get Comey: Administratively review his conduct. FBI agents are fired for “being less than forthcoming” during internal investigations. Pretty sure “outright lying” would get an agent fired too. Comey lied to Congress. Use an administrative process to take his pension away.
Let me get this straight…..
The judge threw out the indictments because the lawyer for the government was appointed by the president?…………….
Yes
Cases dismissed.
Now prosecute Trump for being a Russian asset.
Been there, done that. You want even worse, eh?
“…where it remains until the President’s nominee is confirmed by the Senate.”
Republicans: we only control one-half of 1/3rd of the govt. so we can’t do anything.
Also Republicans: we only control 1/3rd of the govt. so we can’t do anything.
Again, Republicans: we only control two-thirds of the govt. so we can’t do anything.
Still, Republicans: we only control the congress, executive, scotus, but those darn democrats keep topping us from the bottom to thwart everything!
This is a uni-brow party that only exists to protect the deep sewer. Prove me wrong.
I can only hope this was a test balloon to expose the enemy.
How do these high profile Leftists get Leftist Judges every time?
Every. Freaking . Time…
Every. Freaking . Time…
86 comey
Can the SC do anything?
Lawfare from the Left will never end. It’s the one certainty out there.
Ed Whelan, who is not a supporter of the Comey indictment, believes there may be a six-month window to reindict Comey under 18 U.S.C. § 3288.
See here: https://www.nationalreview.com/bench-memos/district-court-rules-halligan-appointment-invalid-dismisses-comey-indictment/
Assuming his comments are accurate, the key question remains whether a U.S. Attorney would be willing to reindict Comey. And, if so, why not?
If Judge Currie is correct, the next interim U.S. Attorney will be appointed by a district court. Alternatively, Trump could nominate someone to the position, who would then be confirmed, but that remains uncertain because Thune is less effective than Schumer at getting nominations through the Senate and approved.