A crucial hearing is set for Thursday in federal court in Alexandria where former FBI Director James B. Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James are asking a judge to remove Lindsey Halligan the U.S. attorney overseeing their prosecutions.
Their legal teams contend that Halligan’s appointment to lead the Eastern District of Virginia was unlawful arguing that every action she has taken including the indictments should be invalidated.
The Justice Department however insists that Halligan was properly appointed and has full prosecutorial authority.
A Fight Over Trump’s Appointments
The hearing before U.S. District Judge Cameron McGowan Currie marks a flashpoint in a broader dispute over the Trump administration’s efforts to replace career prosecutors with political allies.
Halligan a former White House aide and personal attorney to President Trump was installed in September after Trump removed Erik S. Siebert who had refused to pursue cases against Comey and James.
Despite lacking prior experience as a prosecutor Halligan quickly obtained a perjury indictment against Comey and soon after charged James with mortgage fraud related to a home purchase in Norfolk. Both cases were pushed through despite objections from veteran prosecutors in her office, who had determined there was insufficient evidence.
Comey and James deny all wrongdoing, asserting that the prosecutions are politically driven efforts to punish Trump’s critics.
Defense attorneys argue that Halligan’s appointment violated the federal vacancies statute which permits only one 120-day interim appointment by the attorney general before the local district judges must select a replacement if the Senate has not confirmed a nominee.
According to their filing, the Trump administration had already used this process to appoint Siebert, meaning only the judges of the Eastern District of Virginia not the White House had the authority to name his successor.
The Justice Department counters that the law allows the attorney general to make as many interim appointments as needed until a Senate-confirmed U.S. attorney is in place.
A similar dispute earlier this year led a federal judge in New Jersey to rule that another Trump appointee, Alina was serving unlawfully. That court however, declined to dismiss indictments obtained under her tenure.
Comey’s and James’s lawyers argue their situation is unique because Halligan personally signed and presented their indictments to the grand jury without any career prosecutors involved.
Judge Currie a Clinton appointee temporarily assigned to hear the case has shown particular interest in Halligan’s role before the grand jury. She ordered the Justice Department to provide full transcripts of the proceedings after discovering that Halligan’s statements to the grand jurors were initially omitted from the record.
While Justice Department officials publicly maintain confidence in their interpretation of the law their recent actions suggest concern about the outcome. Last week, Attorney General Pam Bondi gave Halligan a new designation as a special attorney for the department a move designed to ensure she can continue leading the prosecutions even if her interim appointment is ruled invalid.
Whatever her title Justice Department counselor Henry C. Whitaker wrote in a court filing Ms. Halligan remains an attorney for the government authorized to present cases to the grand jury and sign indictments.
Thursday’s hearing could determine not only Halligan’s future as U.S. attorney but also the fate of two of the most politically charged prosecutions of Trump’s second term.
