The DOJ has appealed to the Fourth Circuit, arguing Judge Currie wrongly dismissed indictments against Comey and James over the appointment of interim prosecutor Halligan.
The Justice Department filed an appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit on Feb. 9, challenging a district court's dismissal of federal indictments against former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James [1]. The DOJ contends that U.S. District Judge Cameron Currie erred when she invalidated the prosecutions by finding that interim U.S. Attorney Lindsey Halligan had been unlawfully appointed to bring them [1]. The appeal remains pending before the Richmond-based court.
Judge Currie dismissed both indictments in November 2024 after determining that Halligan's appointment violated the Appointments Clause of the U.S. Constitution [1]. The Appointments Clause requires that principal officers of the United States be nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate, and that inferior officers be appointed through processes Congress specifically authorizes. Halligan was installed as interim U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia without Senate confirmation, and Judge Currie concluded that designation was constitutionally defective [1]. Both Comey and James had faced charges widely characterized as politically motivated, pursued under the administration of Attorney General Pam Bondi [1].
The Fourth Circuit appeal raises a consequential constitutional question: whether an interim U.S. attorney installed through executive action, absent Senate confirmation or a statutory appointment mechanism, qualifies as an inferior officer whose appointment Congress has properly authorized. The answer will determine not only whether these two prosecutions can be revived but also whether the DOJ retains flexibility to seat interim prosecutors through informal designations. If the Fourth Circuit affirms Judge Currie, the government faces the prospect that any indictment Halligan signed is void ab initio, with no path to ratification. If it reverses, both cases could be refiled under a prosecutor whose appointment survives constitutional scrutiny.
The DOJ's brief defends Halligan's designation on the grounds that the appointment method was legally adequate, though the specific statutory or regulatory basis cited by the government was not disclosed in available reporting [1]. Defense counsel for both Comey and James are expected to file response briefs. Oral argument has not been scheduled. The outcome will establish Appointments Clause precedent binding on federal district courts across Maryland, Virginia, West Virginia, North Carolina, and South Carolina, and may invite Supreme Court review regardless of which side prevails.