Former FBI Director James Comey has told a federal appeals court that the Department of Justice cannot salvage its case against him due to an unlawful appointment of a prosecutor. Comey accuses the DOJ of hypocrisy, contrasting its stance here with its position in a prior Trump case. The dispute centers on Attorney General Pam Bondi's appointment of Lindsey Halligan as interim U.S. attorney.
James Comey, former director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, presented arguments to a three-judge panel at the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Tuesday, asserting that the DOJ's attempt to revive charges of false statements and obstruction against him is doomed. The core issue revolves around U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi's appointment of Lindsey Halligan as interim U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia in September 2025. Halligan, who lacked prior prosecutorial experience but had the endorsement of President Donald Trump, a former client, secured the indictment against Comey without valid authority, according to Comey's legal team.
In November 2025, Senior U.S. District Judge Cameron Currie dismissed the criminal cases against Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James, ruling that Bondi's appointment of Halligan was unlawful. Bondi later attempted to retroactively validate Halligan's actions on October 31, 2025, by designating her as a special attorney under 28 U.S. Code § 515, claiming this "cured any arguable flaw." However, Comey's brief describes the original indictment as "fatally flawed" and argues that Halligan "could not validly exercise any governmental power" at the time.
Comey emphasized the stakes in a quote from his filing: "The government seeks to excuse its unlawful actions on the ground that it perhaps could have appointed Ms. Halligan differently. But that argument lacks force where, as here, fundamental constitutional protections and individual liberty are at stake. In short, the United States cannot charge and prosecute a case through a person who is not entitled to exercise governmental authority."
The DOJ maintains that any error was merely a "paperwork mistake" that did not prejudice the defendants and has been rectified multiple times. Yet Comey's team highlights a contradiction with the DOJ's position in the Mar-a-Lago classified documents case against Trump, where it supported dismissing the prosecution due to an Appointments Clause violation involving the same statute. In that case, a January 23, 2026, filing backed Trump's view that Special Counsel Jack Smith's work was an "illicit product of an unlawful investigation." Comey argues that, following similar logic, Halligan's actions were void from the outset, and retroactive measures cannot save the case. The appeals court challenge persists amid ongoing replacements for Halligan, who stepped aside in January 2026 but continued using the interim title, drawing judicial criticism.
