New York Attorney General Letitia James and former FBI Director James Comey are facing serious legal challenges. They are now teaming up in a surprising move against U.S. Attorney Lindsey Halligan, the prosecutor overseeing their indictments. This partnership signals a notable development in their legal battles as they prepare for a hearing next month to contest the legitimacy of Halligan’s appointment.
On Thursday, James’s legal team filed a brief two-page notice indicating her intent to fight a banking fraud charge. They plan to challenge Halligan’s authority as the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia. The court filing states, “Please take notice that on October 24, 2025, Letitia James, by counsel, will file her motion to dismiss the indictment that challenges the unlawful appointment of the United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, Lindsey Halligan.” This sets the stage for a courtroom showdown.
In a notable twist, a judge has allowed James’s motion to be consolidated with Comey’s related effort to dismiss his indictment. Both are questioning Halligan’s appointment. The decision reflects a broader scrutiny of how certain officials are appointed within the federal government. Judge Jamal Walker, presiding over James’s case, appears to support this consolidation, which could put both defendants on similar legal footing.
The charges against James claim that she misrepresented her intentions regarding a house in Virginia. Prosecutors allege she claimed the property would serve as a second home but used it instead as a rental investment. James has denied these claims and pleaded not guilty. Her defense now rests on the assertion that Halligan’s appointment was improper, which could invalidate the proceedings against her.
Comey’s situation parallels James’s. He criticizes Halligan’s appointment, arguing it was “defectively appointed to her office.” His legal team contends that a previous interim U.S. Attorney held the position for longer than the statutory limits, rendering Halligan’s role illegitimate. Like James, Comey has also pleaded not guilty to charges of making false statements to Congress and obstruction of justice. A hearing scheduled for November 13 will delve further into his attempts to dismiss his own indictment.
The backdrop of this legal drama includes the appointment of U.S. District Judge Cameron Currie, a Clinton appointee, who will determine Halligan’s disqualification in a case that intertwines both James and Comey. Currie sits within a jurisdiction that encompasses both defendants. Critics have highlighted potential conflicts of interest arising from this setup, as noted by Andrew C. McCarthy in National Review. He suggested that disqualifying motions regarding Halligan be reassigned to avoid issues of bias and ensure fair proceedings.
The convergence of these legal battles illustrates a pattern where both James and Comey are leveraging similar defenses. Their strategy rests on questioning the validity of Halligan’s appointment, which places significant focus on the procedural integrity of their indictments. This joint challenge could set a precedential tone in how interim U.S. Attorneys are scrutinized and appointed in the future.
As the hearings approach, eyes will remain on the court’s decisions and how they may impact the legal landscapes for both figures. The intertwining of personal and political stakes in this scenario highlights the complexities and potential repercussions of federal appointments.
James and Comey are mounting a defensive front that aims not only to clear their names but also to bring into question the very foundation of the legal actions taken against them. The implications of such a case may set a vital precedent that could influence future prosecutions and appointments within the judicial system.
"*" indicates required fields
