Justice Dept. defends Lindsey Halligan against unlawful-appointment criticism
Justice Department lawyers on Monday defended Lindsey Halligan’s role as eastern Virgnia’s top federal prosecutor, saying in court filings that even if her appointment as U.S. attorney is ruled invalid, she now has an additional title that will allow her to continue overseeing cases against two of President Donald Trump’s perceived foes.
The department attorneys said Attorney General Pam Bondi designated Halligan last week as a “special attorney” to the Justice Department, assigned to oversee the cases against former FBI director James B. Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James. Lawyers for Comey and James have urged a federal judge to dismiss the charges against them on grounds that Halligan was unlawfully installed as U.S. attorney in September and has no authority to prosecute them.
“Whatever her title, Ms. Halligan is still an ‘attorney for the government’ authorized to conduct grand jury proceedings and sign indictments,” Henry C. Whitaker, a counselor to Bondi, wrote in court filings Monday.
The unusual maneuvering signaled at least some concern among Justice Department officials that questions over Halligan’s status could put the cases against Comey and James in jeopardy. It also represents the latest effort by the Trump administration to push the legal boundaries of federal vacancies law to keep loyalists in key prosecutorial posts.
In recent weeks, three other Trump-appointed U.S. attorneys have been disqualified by federal judges who have ruled that the Justice Department violated those laws to retain preferred candidates in their positions while bypassing the Senate confirmation process.
Trump installed Halligan in her role after her predecessor, Erik S. Siebert, was forced out of the post in part over his decision not to move forward with cases against Comey and James because he deemed the evidence to be insufficient.
Within weeks of assuming her post, Halligan secured indictments against Comey on charges that he lied to Congress, and James on allegations of mortgage fraud. Both have denied wrongdoing and derided their prosecutions as a vindictive effort by the Trump administration to punish them for their opposition to the president.
A judge has scheduled a hearing next week to weigh their arguments that Halligan’s appointment is invalid and that, as a result, their cases should be dismissed.
Federal law empowers the attorney general to appoint interim U.S. attorneys to fill vacancies when there is no Senate-confirmed official filling those roles, as Bondi did in Halligan’s case. However, it limits those temporary appointments to 120 days.
Comey and James argue that Siebert had already served a full 120-day interim term before he was ousted in September and that the statute does not permit the Trump administration to make a second interim appointment.
In their filings Monday, Justice Department lawyers contended that the 120-day term limit was designed to allow the attorney general time to review those serving temporarily in the role—not to bar her from making repeated interim appointments.
“There is no question that the Attorney General intended to vest Ms. Halligan with the powers of U.S. Attorney and thus with the powers of a government attorney authorized to conduct criminal litigation—a fact that the Attorney General has confirmed by ratifying Ms. Halligan’s appointment under her other authorities,” Whitaker wrote.
Comey, who has emerged as a vocal Trump critic since he was fired as FBI director in 2017, has also argued that his case should be dismissed on grounds that it’s being driven not by the facts and the law, but by Trump’s long-standing animosity toward him.
Prosecutors allege that Comey misled the Senate Judiciary Committee during a 2020 hearing in which he was questioned on whether he had ever authorized anyone to serve as an anonymous source to the news media about FBI investigations into Trump and former secretary of state Hillary Clinton. But Comey has argued that the indictment misquotes key aspects of that hearing to make it appear as if he was untruthful.
In its court filings Monday, the Justice Department urged a judge to reject Comey’s vindictive-prosecution argument and contended that the case was driven by a “legitimate prosecutorial motive.”
Comey’s “extraordinary conduct—and the level of public trust he betrayed by lying to Congress about his official actions—are manifestly the reason for his prosecution,” Assistant U.S. Attorney N. Tyler Lemons wrote. “The executive cannot be expected to ignore agency heads lying about official actions simply because they later become outspoken critics.”
See also:
Letitia James, DOJ prosecutor in sealed battle over subpoena
Letitia James pleads not guilty in mortgage case Trump pushed
Justice Department indicts NY attorney general
Prosecutors push toward charging other Trump foes
Trump’s new demands on Justice Department raise alarm among prosecutors
Justice Department subpoenas Letitia James about Trump fraud probe
Justice Department is investigating NY attorney general who has targeted Trump
Write a letter to the editor, share a story tip or update, or report an error.
