Judge Signals Major Ruling Ahead in Comey and Letitia James Cases, Raises Concerns Over Missing Grand Jury Minutes
A federal judge overseeing two of the most closely watched cases in the country said Thursday she expects to issue a key ruling before Thanksgiving. The decision will determine whether Lindsey Halligan is lawfully serving as U.S. attorney — a question that could influence the prosecutions of former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James.
Both defendants are asking the court to remove Halligan and potentially dismiss their indictments, arguing that the Justice Department mishandled her appointment. The issue has become a major legal flashpoint, with the potential to affect not just these cases, but the wider debate over the Trump administration’s authority to appoint interim federal prosecutors.
During the hearing, Judge Cameron McGowan Currie — who was appointed to the bench during the Clinton administration — noted an unusual issue: minutes appear to be missing from the grand jury transcript in Comey’s case. According to CNN’s account of the hearing, a court reporter stopped taking notes at one point, and the reason for the gap is unclear.
The judge did not draw conclusions about the missing minutes but acknowledged the irregularity.
Trials in both cases are tentatively set for January, according to reporting from Newsweek.
Comey and Letitia James Seek Dismissal Based on Alleged Improper Appointment
Former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James — both high-profile critics of former President Donald Trump — argue that their federal cases should be dismissed on constitutional grounds.
Their legal teams say Lindsey Halligan was installed as U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia after the previous interim appointment had expired, leaving the Justice Department without authority to fill the vacancy on its own. Under federal law, once a 120-day interim term ends, the appointment power shifts to the district’s judges.
According to court filings, Comey and James argue:
-
The DOJ exceeded its authority
-
Halligan’s appointment lacked statutory support
-
Any indictments issued during this period are constitutionally flawed
-
The cases should be dismissed entirely
Their argument centers on a long-standing rule meant to prevent political manipulation of U.S. attorney positions.
Defense attorneys cited past precedent to argue that the administration cannot make “back-to-back interim appointments” to bypass Senate confirmation.
Government Says Even If Appointment Was Flawed, Indictments Should Stand
Justice Department lawyers pushed back strongly, arguing that even if Halligan was not properly appointed, it would amount to a “paperwork error” — not a basis to dismiss indictments handed down by a lawfully seated grand jury.
The government maintains:
-
No statute expressly forbids consecutive interim appointments
-
The attorney general retains broad authority to ensure continuity within U.S. attorney offices
-
Dismissing the cases over an administrative timing issue would be too extreme
Prosecutors suggested the defense arguments were an attempt to sidestep the underlying allegations in the indictments.
How the Appointment Dispute Started
The controversy stems from the resignation of then–interim U.S. Attorney Erik Siebert in September. According to court documents:
-
Siebert was originally appointed by Attorney General Pam Bondi in January
-
His 120-day term expired
-
District judges unanimously agreed he should stay on
-
Pressure from Trump administration officials grew over bringing charges
-
Siebert ultimately resigned
After Siebert’s departure, the Justice Department installed Lindsey Halligan as another interim U.S. attorney — instead of allowing the judges to appoint a replacement.
Defense lawyers say this violated the law. The DOJ says it did not.
Defense Warns of Dangerous Precedent
At Thursday’s hearing, Letitia James’ attorney Abbe Lowell warned that the DOJ’s interpretation would allow virtually anyone to seek indictments from a grand jury and then be retroactively named U.S. attorney afterward.
Lowell argued this would undermine both public trust and the Constitution’s clear structure for appointing federal prosecutors.
Judge Currie did not rule on the argument but said she intends to decide before Thanksgiving.
Trump’s Role and Political Tensions
The issue is politically charged because both Comey and Letitia James have been central figures in long-running political battles:
-
Comey oversaw the FBI during the Clinton email investigation
-
He later authorized the Russia probe into Donald Trump
-
Letitia James pursued major civil and criminal actions against Trump in New York
Both have accused Trump of waging political “revenge prosecutions,” allegations the administration strongly denies.
The Trump Justice Department argues the cases arise from evidence uncovered through standard investigative processes.
When Lindsey Halligan was appointed in September, Trump posted on Truth Social that she was a “tough, smart, and loyal attorney” who fought “the weaponization of the Justice System.”
Judge Notes Missing Grand Jury Minutes
CNN reported that Judge Currie highlighted a concerning detail: a portion of the grand jury transcript in Comey’s case is incomplete because the court reporter stopped typing for an unknown interval.
The judge did not indicate whether the missing notes would affect the case but acknowledged that defense lawyers are likely to raise the issue further.
Grand jury transcripts are typically closely monitored, and even small irregularities can become major points in pretrial motions.
Potential Outcomes Before Thanksgiving
Judge Currie’s ruling could take several forms:
1. Halligan’s appointment is upheld
→ The cases proceed to trial in January.
→ Missing grand jury minutes may still be litigated.
2. Halligan’s appointment is ruled improper but indictments stand
→ DOJ may reauthorize and re-present charges.
→ Trials would be delayed but not dismissed.
3. Halligan’s appointment is ruled improper and indictments are dismissed
→ DOJ could refile charges, but political fallout would be substantial.
→ Defense wins major early victory.
Most legal experts expect outcomes #1 or #2, but the missing transcript complicates predictions.
Why This Case Matters Nationally
The dispute raises bigger questions about:
-
The limits of interim appointment authority
-
The separation of powers between courts and the Justice Department
-
Whether administrative oversights can unravel major prosecutions
-
How politically sensitive federal cases should be handled
Given the high profile of the defendants and the timing — with the 2026 midterms approaching — the ruling will be closely watched across Washington.
Looking Ahead
Judge Currie’s commitment to rule before Thanksgiving signals she understands the stakes. Whatever she decides will shape the legal and political landscape heading into a contentious election cycle.
Both sides are preparing for rapid appeals, and the appointment question could ultimately reach the Supreme Court.
For now, Comey, Letitia James, the Justice Department, and the Trump administration are all in a holding pattern — waiting for a decision that could determine how these politically charged cases unfold.
Emily Johnson is a critically acclaimed essayist and novelist known for her thought-provoking works centered on feminism, women’s rights, and modern relationships. Born and raised in Portland, Oregon, Emily grew up with a deep love of books, often spending her afternoons at her local library. She went on to study literature and gender studies at UCLA, where she became deeply involved in activism and began publishing essays in campus journals. Her debut essay collection, Voices Unbound, struck a chord with readers nationwide for its fearless exploration of gender dynamics, identity, and the challenges faced by women in contemporary society. Emily later transitioned into fiction, writing novels that balance compelling storytelling with social commentary. Her protagonists are often strong, multidimensional women navigating love, ambition, and the struggles of everyday life, making her a favorite among readers who crave authentic, relatable narratives. Critics praise her ability to merge personal intimacy with universal themes. Off the page, Emily is an advocate for women in publishing, leading workshops that encourage young female writers to embrace their voices. She lives in Seattle with her partner and two rescue cats, where she continues to write, teach, and inspire a new generation of storytellers.
