The US Department of Justice has appealed a district court's dismissal of criminal cases against former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James. The appeal centers on the validity of interim US Attorney Lindsey Halligan's appointment and Attorney General Pam Bondi's retroactive ratification of her actions. The DOJ argues that any flaws were harmless and do not warrant dismissal.
In a brief filed Friday at the 4th US Circuit Court of Appeals, US Attorney General Pam Bondi and Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche defended Lindsey Halligan's role in indicting James Comey and Letitia James. Halligan, a special assistant to the president, served as interim US Attorney and signed the indictments herself while presenting to the grand juries. The Trump administration contends that Halligan's appointment complied with the Federal Vacancies Reform Act, allowing successive 120-day interim terms by the Attorney General. They argue the Attorney General is 'fully empowered' for such appointments, though this failed in the lower court. As a fallback, Bondi retroactively ratified Halligan's actions on Halloween by appointing her as a special attorney, claiming this 'cured any arguable flaw.' Bondi asserted that ratification meant she 'obtained and signed the indictments herself,' stating, 'The Attorney General did not use ratification to do something she otherwise could not.' In November, Senior US District Judge Cameron Currie dismissed the cases, ruling the ratification came 'too late in the day,' especially since Halligan was the sole prosecutor involved. The DOJ brief dismisses the need for dismissal even if signatures were defective and ridicules the defendants' claims of prejudice, saying, 'The question is whether the grand jury would have made a different decision had Halligan been appointed lawfully... And the answer is plainly no.' No new indictments have followed the dismissals, and Halligan left two months later. Separately, a judge quashed grand jury subpoenas in James' cases due to another acting US attorney's invalid appointment. The DOJ maintains no 'fundamental unfairness' occurred.
