On November 13, 2025, a federal courtroom in Virginia became the stage for a growing legal controversy with potentially sweeping implications for some of the country’s most politically sensitive prosecutions. A U.S. district judge questioned whether Lindsey Halligan, currently serving as the interim U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, was validly appointed under federal law. At issue is whether her authority to lead prosecutions—including those against former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James—rests on solid legal ground. If not, the judge signaled, the indictments she signed could be rendered void.
The challenge stems from the legal statute that governs interim appointments for U.S. Attorneys, 28 U.S.C. § 546. Under this provision, the Attorney General is allowed to appoint an interim U.S. Attorney for up to 120 days. If no permanent replacement is confirmed by the Senate within that period, the district court must then appoint someone to fill the role. However, in Halligan’s case, it appears she succeeded another interim appointee whose statutory term had already expired, raising the possibility that her own appointment was not legally permissible. If this interpretation holds, she may have lacked the legal authority to seek indictments or appear before a grand jury.
Judge Cameron McGowan Currie, presiding over pretrial motions in the Comey and James cases, voiced skepticism about the appointment’s legality. The judge noted that the government had failed to provide a clear timeline or documentation proving that Halligan’s role complied with the statutory process. During the hearing, concerns were also raised about the grand jury proceedings overseen by Halligan. Portions of the transcripts were reportedly missing, and the judge emphasized that such gaps undermined the court’s ability to determine whether proper procedures were followed.
The stakes are considerable. Halligan, a former personal attorney to the president, was appointed to the interim role in September 2025 after her predecessor, Erik Siebert, resigned abruptly amid reported tension over his reluctance to pursue politically sensitive indictments. Just days after assuming the role, Halligan brought charges against both Comey and James. Defense counsel for both defendants have argued that these cases reflect not only prosecutorial overreach but also an abuse of the appointment process meant to ensure political independence in federal law enforcement.
Legal experts watching the case say the implications extend well beyond Halligan or the Eastern District of Virginia. If the court determines that her appointment was unlawful, it could set a precedent that affects other prosecutors appointed under similar circumstances. There’s also the risk that previous decisions—such as plea agreements, search warrants, or charging documents—authorized by Halligan or comparable officials could be called into question.
For defense attorneys across the country, the case serves as a reminder of the importance of scrutinizing the authority of the officials leading prosecutions. In politically charged cases, or when an interim or acting U.S. Attorney is involved, it is becoming increasingly common for defense teams to conduct due diligence into the appointment process itself. Such an approach may uncover procedural missteps that could form the basis for dismissals or case delays.
From the Justice Department’s perspective, the outcome of this case could be far-reaching. A ruling that invalidates Halligan’s appointment might necessitate not only the dismissal of current indictments but a complete re-evaluation of cases tied to her tenure. It could also complicate efforts to bring charges in other politically sensitive matters, as defense teams may feel emboldened to raise similar challenges against prosecutors elsewhere.
In addition to the legal ramifications, the case is politically charged. Halligan’s appointment, coming so closely after Siebert’s departure and her past role as a legal adviser to the president, has fueled criticism that the position was filled for partisan advantage. Supporters argue that she acted well within her authority, and that any procedural defects were either harmless or correctable. However, critics claim the move reflects an attempt to bypass Senate confirmation and use interim appointments to advance politically motivated prosecutions.
The judge has indicated that a ruling on the legality of Halligan’s appointment will be issued before Thanksgiving. That decision could either allow the prosecutions to move forward or lead to their dismissal—possibly forcing the Justice Department to start over under a properly appointed U.S. Attorney.
Ultimately, the controversy strikes at the core of the justice system’s credibility. Prosecutorial authority must rest on legally sound appointments, especially in cases involving public officials and politically sensitive allegations. If the appointment process is undermined, so too is the legitimacy of the cases it touches. The coming weeks will reveal whether procedural integrity will stand as a check on prosecutorial power—or whether political considerations have already shifted the balance.
