A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit heard arguments on September 15, 2025, regarding the Department of Justice’s appeal to reinstate indictments against former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James.
The DOJ argued that the prosecutions should proceed despite a federal judge’s dismissal in November 2025, which ruled that the interim U.S. attorney overseeing the cases, Lindsey Halligan, was unlawfully appointed. The appeals court is now evaluating whether Halligan’s appointment was valid and whether then-Attorney General Pam Bondi could retroactively approve the indictments after the challenge arose.
Core Legal Questions
The hearing centered on two key legal issues:
- Whether Halligan’s appointment as interim U.S. attorney complied with federal law—specifically Section 546 of Title 28 of the U.S. Code, which permits the attorney general to appoint interim U.S. attorneys for up to 120 days without Senate confirmation.
- Whether Bondi’s subsequent ratification of the indictments cured any procedural defect in Halligan’s appointment.
DOJ’s Argument
Attorneys for the DOJ, including Henry Whitaker, contended that Halligan’s appointment was lawful because the 120-day clock restarted upon her appointment in September 2025, following the resignation of her predecessor, Erik Siebert. Whitaker asserted that the law allows interim appointees to serve beyond the initial 120-day period if a vacancy persists, and that Bondi’s ratification of the indictments after the challenge validated the prosecutions.
Defense’s Counterarguments
Lawyers for Comey and James, including Ephraim McDowell, argued that the indictments were fundamentally flawed because they were secured by an unconstitutionally appointed prosecutor. McDowell stated that the defect was not merely procedural but went to the core legitimacy of the prosecutions, asserting that the cases should never have been initiated under Halligan’s authority.
Background on the Cases
Comey was indicted for allegedly lying to Congress about media leaks, while James faces charges related to mortgage fraud. Both indictments were dismissed in November 2025 after a federal judge ruled that Halligan lacked the legal authority to bring the cases. The DOJ’s appeal now seeks to overturn that dismissal, arguing that the procedural irregularities do not invalidate the underlying charges.
The Fourth Circuit’s decision is pending, with no timeline provided for a ruling.