Federal Judge Questions Legitimacy of Lindsey Halligan in High-Profile Cases Against Comey and James

Alexandria, Virginia – November 13, 2025  In a courtroom drama that could upend two politically charged federal indictments, U.S. District Judge Cameron McGowan Currie expressed deep reservations Thursday about the appointment of Lindsey Halligan as interim U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, potentially jeopardizing prosecutions against former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James. The Clinton-appointed judge, presiding over a packed hearing in Alexandria, promised a ruling by Thanksgiving that may force the dismissal of both cases.

Halligan, a longtime ally of President Donald Trump who previously served on his personal legal team during the Mar-a-Lago classified documents probe, was swiftly installed in the role last September at Trump's direct urging. The move came after Trump ousted the office's prior interim leader, Erik Siebert, for balking at pursuing the high-profile charges. In a September social media post, Trump explicitly called for action against Comey and James, whom he has long accused of political vendettas.

The indictments in question—Comey's for alleged perjury related to 2017 testimony on Clinton-era leaks, and James's for unspecified misconduct tied to her office's investigations—were signed solely by Halligan and presented by her to grand juries. Defense attorneys for both defendants, including Comey's counsel Patrick Fitzgerald, argue that Halligan's appointment violated federal law, rendering the charges invalid from the outset.

At the more than hour-long hearing, Currie zeroed in on procedural irregularities that have fueled the controversy. She voiced particular alarm over a "missing" portion of the grand jury transcript from Comey's case, which she had requested in advance to scrutinize Halligan's involvement. "This leaves certain aspects of her interactions with the grand jury unreviewable," Currie remarked, according to observers, underscoring her frustration with the Department of Justice's explanations.

The judge, a South Carolina-based veteran of the federal bench since her 1994 appointment by President Bill Clinton, was specially designated to handle the matter to sidestep conflicts in Virginia's Eastern District, where local judges frequently interact with the U.S. Attorney's office. Her skepticism was palpable as Justice Department lawyer Corey Whitaker defended the appointment, dismissing critics' concerns as "fanciful" and at worst a "paperwork error."

Whitaker pointed to a retroactive order signed by Attorney General Pam Bondi on Halloween—backdated to September 22—that rebranded Halligan as a "special attorney" and purported to ratify her actions after the fact. Bondi claimed in the order that she had reviewed Halligan's grand jury presentations, granting her full authority for civil and criminal proceedings. But Currie appeared unmoved, likening the maneuver to an attempt to "bend space and time," echoing arguments from James's legal team.

Defense lawyers drew parallels to recent court rebukes of similar Trump-era interim appointments in Los Angeles, Nevada, and New Jersey, where judges ruled that the 120-day limit for such roles—intended to prevent bypassing Senate confirmation—had been exceeded. They invoked a longstanding Justice Department policy, once endorsed by future Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito, prohibiting "successive interim appointments" to evade congressional oversight. Allowing Halligan to proceed, they contended, would effectively nullify the Senate's constitutional role in vetting U.S. Attorneys.

The stakes could not be higher. Comey's five-year statute of limitations expired just days before his indictment was unsealed, leaving little room for refiling if dismissed. Prosecutors counter that a federal statute grants them at least six months to revive the case, even if Halligan is disqualified. James's charges, meanwhile, stem from her office's aggressive probes into Trump's business empire, which led to his 2024 civil fraud conviction—a case she has vowed to defend vigorously.

Currie did not tip her hand on the ultimate outcome but emphasized the gravity of her impending decision. "I'm waiting eagerly" for related appellate rulings, she noted, referencing a recent hearing on a New Jersey interim appointment where judges seemed equally dubious of the government's position. Legal experts watching the proceedings described the atmosphere as tense, with gasps rippling through the gallery when Currie probed parallels to the dismissed special counsel probe of Jack Smith.

As the holiday season approaches, the ruling looms as a potential flashpoint in Trump's ongoing clashes with the judiciary and his perceived adversaries. If Currie sides with the defendants, it could mark another setback for the administration's aggressive use of federal prosecutorial power, echoing the dismissal of Smith's Mar-a-Lago case last year on appointment grounds. For now, all eyes remain on the bench in Alexandria, where Thanksgiving turkey may come with a side of legal upheaval. 17GEN4.com