A federal judge recently threw out Justice Department indictments against former FBI director James Comey and New York attorney general Letitia James after finding the prosecutor who signed the charges had been improperly appointed. That prosecutor was Lindsey Halligan, a 36-year-old former insurance defense lawyer who served briefly as one of former president Donald Trump’s personal attorneys and later as a White House aide.
Halligan was installed as acting U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia in late September, the day after her predecessor, Erik Siebert, resigned amid pressure from the president to pursue the cases against Comey and James. The president publicly praised Halligan on announcing her appointment.
U.S. District Judge Cameron McGowan Currie concluded that Halligan’s appointment violated federal limits on interim U.S. attorneys. Under the applicable statute, an interim appointee may serve for 120 days; because Siebert had already been acting in the role since January, the statutory window had closed and only a district court, not the Attorney General or the executive branch, could lawfully fill the vacancy. Currie noted Halligan had no prior prosecutorial experience beyond her White House work and found she lacked lawful authority to present the indictments. Because Halligan was the sole signatory on those filings, the judge set those actions aside as unlawful. The Justice Department has said it will appeal.
Background and career
Halligan grew up in Broomfield, Colorado, and majored in politics and broadcast journalism at Regis University. She earned her J.D. from the University of Miami in 2013 and while in law school interned at the Miami-Dade Public Defender’s Office and the Miami Innocence Clinic. She began practicing at Cole, Scott & Kissane, a Florida firm that focuses on insurance defense, and became a partner there in 2018. The firm pointed to successful defenses, including a resolved property-damage claim, among her achievements.
Halligan met Trump at an event at his West Palm Beach club in November 2021 and joined his personal legal team in 2022, working on his defense in the Mar-a-Lago classified-materials investigation and appearing publicly to discuss that matter. A separate challenge to the classified-documents case by a federal judge later hinged on an appointment issue; the Justice Department eventually dropped its appeal after Trump’s reelection.
When Trump returned to the White House in January 2025, Halligan took on White House roles, including senior associate staff secretary and special assistant to the president. She accompanied the president at public events and led a controversial review of several Smithsonian museums to check their alignment with administration priorities, a move criticized by some historians.
From White House aide to acting U.S. attorney
Halligan’s elevation to acting U.S. attorney followed the resignation of Erik Siebert, who had resisted bringing charges against Comey and James after the office determined there was insufficient evidence. The president publicly criticized Siebert and called for his removal; Halligan’s appointment was announced the next day, and an authorization was issued less than 48 hours later.
On September 25, Halligan’s office announced a grand jury had returned an indictment charging Comey with making false statements and obstructing an investigation tied to his 2020 Senate testimony. The announcement came five days before the statute of limitations on the alleged offense would have run and on Halligan’s fourth day in office.
Procedural questions and criticisms
Beyond the appointment defect, outside lawyers and some prosecutors flagged substantive problems in how the cases were handled. A magistrate judge ordered the Justice Department to produce all grand jury materials to Comey’s defense team, citing what the judge described as a pattern of investigative missteps. At a later hearing Halligan acknowledged the full grand jury had not reviewed the final indictment against Comey, a procedural omission that can be fatal to a prosecution.
Halligan initially sought three counts against Comey; the grand jury rejected one count. When the remaining charges were renumbered and refiled, the new indictment was not returned to the full grand jury for a fresh vote, a step many experienced prosecutors say is essential. Critics called that lapse a basic error and questioned the wisdom of rushing a complex, politically charged case in the prosecutor’s first week on the job. Former federal prosecutors, including Elie Honig among others, described the timing and conduct as reckless and likely to produce mistakes.
Legal and political fallout
Judge Currie’s ruling focused on the statutory appointment framework under 28 U.S.C. § 546 and on the formal validity of indictments Halligan signed. Because she was the only signatory, the judge ruled the indictments lacked lawful authority and vacated actions tied to her defective appointment. The Justice Department has the option to appeal the decision.
The White House responded by calling the decision a technical ruling and defending Halligan’s qualifications and appointment. Still, the episode has intensified scrutiny of how the Justice Department handles politically sensitive prosecutions, the use of interim appointments to staff U.S. attorney offices, and whether political pressure influenced the replacement of a U.S. attorney who resisted pursuing certain charges.
The case illustrates how procedural and appointment rules can derail high-profile investigations even when underlying disputes attract intense public attention. Legal experts say the matter underscores the importance of following grand jury procedures and statutory appointment limits, particularly in prosecutions with significant political implications.