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.
CLICK HERE FOR FULL VERSION OF THIS STORY