Comey and James File Consolidated Challenge to Halligan's Authority Under 120-Day Rule

Former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James filed coordinated motions challenging the constitutional authority of interim U.S. Attorney Lindsey Halligan to prosecute their cases, with both challenges consolidated before Judge Cameron McGowan Currie of the District of South Carolina. The core legal argument centers on the Federal Vacancies Reform Act’s 120-day rule: after Erik Siebert’s 120-day interim appointment expired in May 2025, the federal district court—not the Attorney General—had exclusive constitutional authority to appoint the next interim U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia.

Comey’s defense team, led by Jessica Carmichael, Patrick J. Fitzgerald, and Michael Dreeben, filed an 85-page motion arguing that when Siebert resigned on September 19, 2025, “the district court again had the exclusive authority to appoint an interim U.S. Attorney.” Instead, Attorney General Pam Bondi unlawfully appointed Halligan as interim prosecutor, bypassing the judicial appointment process required by statute. James’ October 24 filing explicitly noted the motions “should likely be consolidated” given they raise identical Appointments Clause challenges.

Judge Currie, assigned to avoid conflicts of interest since the Virginia federal judiciary played a role in appointing Siebert’s predecessor, scheduled a hearing for November 13, 2025, and ordered the Justice Department to turn over all internal records related to Halligan’s involvement in both indictments by November 3, 2025. The consolidated challenge represents a fundamental attack on the legitimacy of Trump’s political prosecutions—if Halligan lacked proper authority, all indictments she secured could be invalidated.

The legal challenge exposes systematic executive branch violations of appointment procedures designed to protect prosecutorial independence. By appointing Halligan through the Attorney General rather than allowing district judges to select an interim prosecutor as required after 120 days, the Trump administration circumvented constitutional checks specifically designed to prevent politicized prosecutions. This parallels the earlier Alina Habba case in New Jersey, where a federal judge ruled her appointment violated the Federal Vacancies Reform Act, establishing precedent that interim U.S. Attorney appointments cannot be used to bypass Senate confirmation and judicial oversight indefinitely.

The November 13 hearing before Judge Currie will determine whether two of Trump’s highest-profile political prosecutions can proceed, with both defendants arguing the indictments are void ab initio due to Halligan’s unlawful exercise of prosecutorial authority. The consolidated challenge represents the most significant legal threat to the administration’s weaponization of federal law enforcement, potentially invalidating not only these prosecutions but establishing precedent against similar appointment manipulation across all federal districts.