• Judge rules Halligan illegally installed as interim U.S. attorney in Virginia
• Comey and James indictments thrown out due to constitutional violations
• Fourth Trump administration prosecutor disqualified for unlawful appointment methods

WASHINGTON, DC (TDR) — U.S. District Judge Cameron McGowan Currie issued simultaneous rulings Monday disqualifying Lindsey Halligan as interim U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, determining she lacked legal authority to prosecute cases or sign indictments. The former White House adviser and personal attorney to President Donald Trump, who had no prior prosecutorial experience, saw all her actions as prosecutor deemed unlawful exercises of executive power that must be set aside.

Halligan’s background and appointment failures

Halligan, an insurance lawyer before joining the Trump White House, was installed in September after the previous interim U.S. attorney, Erik Siebert, departed amid reported pressure to bring charges against former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James. The appointment came days after Trump publicly urged Attorney General Pam Bondi to prosecute his political opponents, posting on social media that justice must be served immediately.

Judge Currie found that Halligan’s September 22 appointment violated both the Federal Vacancies Reform Act and the Constitution’s Appointments Clause. The South Carolina-based judge, specially assigned to handle the constitutional challenges, determined that the 120-day statutory window for Attorney General appointments had expired on May 21, more than four months before Bondi attempted to install Halligan.

“The Attorney General’s attempt to install Ms. Halligan as Interim U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia was invalid, and all actions flowing from Ms. Halligan’s defective appointment constitute unlawful exercises of executive power and must be set aside.”

Rushed prosecutions and procedural irregularities

Freedom-Loving Beachwear by Red Beach Nation - Save 10% With Code RVM10

Halligan moved with unusual speed after her appointment, securing Comey’s indictment just five days later on September 25, acting alone without involvement from career prosecutors in the office. The indictment came days before a five-year statute of limitations was set to expire. She presented the James case to a grand jury in early October, again as the sole prosecutor signing the charging documents.

Judge Currie noted that Halligan’s unique role as the only prosecutor involved in both cases made her invalid appointment fatal to the prosecutions. The judge distinguished these cases from other situations involving unlawfully appointed prosecutors where career prosecutors had participated in the cases, allowing some prosecutions to continue despite disqualified leadership.

The judge rejected Attorney General Bondi’s attempt to retroactively ratify Halligan’s actions, stating the government could not identify any authority allowing such after-the-fact validation. Judge Currie wrote that accepting this argument would mean the government could send any private citizen into a grand jury room to secure indictments so long as the Attorney General approved afterward.

Fourth Trump prosecutor disqualified

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE THE DUPREE REPORT

Halligan’s disqualification marks the fourth time a Trump administration interim U.S. attorney has been ruled unlawfully appointed by federal judges. Previous rulings disqualified Alina Habba in New Jersey, Sigal Chattah in Nevada, and Bill Essayli in Los Angeles for similar violations of appointment laws.

The pattern reflects the administration’s strategy of installing loyalists without Senate confirmation in districts where Democratic senators can block nominees. In each case, judges found that the administration attempted to circumvent the Senate’s constitutional advice and consent role through creative interpretations of the Federal Vacancies Reform Act.

Halligan’s appointment differed from the other disqualified prosecutors in that she acted entirely alone in securing indictments, without career prosecutor involvement. Judge Currie found this made her case more severe, as no other prosecutors could validate the legitimacy of the charging decisions. The judge noted that Halligan, described as a former White House aide with no prior prosecutorial experience, exercised power she did not lawfully possess.

Impact on pending cases

The indictments Halligan secured against Comey and James were dismissed without prejudice, potentially allowing the Department of Justice to seek new charges under a lawfully appointed prosecutor. However, Judge Currie suggested that re-indicting Comey remained unlikely because the September 30 statute of limitations deadline had passed without a valid indictment.

Comey had faced charges of making false statements to Congress and obstructing a congressional proceeding. James was indicted on bank fraud charges. Both pleaded not guilty and filed separate motions arguing the prosecutions were vindictive and politically motivated, claims that remain pending.

In a statement following the dismissal, James said she remained fearless in continuing to fight for New Yorkers. Comey stated in a video message that the message must be sent that presidents cannot use the Department of Justice to target political enemies.

Constitutional limits on appointment authority

The rulings underscore constitutional challenges facing the administration’s approach to filling U.S. attorney positions without Senate confirmation. Judge Currie determined that accepting the government’s interpretation of appointment laws would allow officials to evade the Senate confirmation process indefinitely by stacking successive 120-day appointments.

The judge wrote that the clock for temporary appointments began with Siebert’s January 21 installation and expired May 21, four months before Halligan’s appointment. This interpretation prevents the administration from creating continuous chains of interim prosecutors to avoid Senate involvement in districts where confirmation faces obstacles.

White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson stated that the facts of the indictments have not changed and the dismissals will not be the final word on the matter. The Justice Department did not immediately respond to requests for comment on whether it will appeal Halligan’s disqualification or attempt to recharge the cases under different prosecutorial leadership.

Legal observers note that Halligan’s disqualification, combined with three other similar rulings, signals judicial skepticism of the administration’s appointment strategies. The pattern suggests courts will continue scrutinizing attempts to install prosecutors without following standard confirmation procedures, particularly in high-profile cases involving the president’s political opponents.

How should federal appointment laws balance executive flexibility with constitutional confirmation requirements?

Freedom-Loving Beachwear by Red Beach Nation - Save 10% With Code RVM10