By admin 
President Donald Trump’s Justice Department is trying to overturn a decision by a South Carolina federal judge that nullified two criminal indictments against Trump political adversaries.
Read more SC city secures $1.4M to finish Hurricane Helene cleanup after two years. Here’s what’s planned
On Tuesday, a three-judge panel at the Fourth Circuit Court heard arguments from lawyers for former FBI director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James as to why the indictments should continue to be voided, as well as from a Justice lawyer arguing for their reinstatement.
Last November, U.S. District Judge Cameron McGowan Currie of South Carolina issued a ruling that voided indictments against Comey and James because, the judge ruled, the interim U.S. attorney who sought and got the indictments from a Virginia federal grand jury had been unlawfully appointed.
Currie, 77, who has an extensive law enforcement and legal background, has been on the bench 32 years. She was appointed by former President Bill Clinton.
Tuesday’s arguments centered on the key issue in Currie’s ruling — whether interim U.S. Attorney Lindsey Halligan, who brought the indictments against Comey and James, was lawfully appointed by former Attorney General Pam Bondi to fill the U.S. attorney vacancy in the office.
“The attorney general has the authority to appoint an interim U.S. attorney if the position is vacant,” and the position was vacant, argued Justice attorney Henry Winkler, who told the judges Halligan was lawfully installed. “In this case, there was no dispute that there was a vacancy.” No exceptions to that rule applied to this case, Winkler told the judges.
But Comey attorney Ephraim McDowell told the judges that the way Halligan was appointed contained a “fundamental defect” — she had “no authority to do so” — and therefore any indictment she obtained was invalid.
“U.S. attorneys wield tremendous power over individual life and liberty — that’s why, since the founding of our nation, U.S. attorneys have been confirmed by the Senate,” McDowell told the judges. The appointment of an interim U.S. attorney not confirmed by the Senate has to be done according to law, and the law was not followed in Halligan’s case, McDowell said.
Following more than an hour’s worth of arguments, news accounts and an expert predicted that a majority of the panel would likely uphold Currie’s ruling that dismissed the indictments.
“My guess it would a 2-1 decision (to uphold Currie’s ruling),” said Carl Tobias, a widely published University of Richmond law professor regarded as an authority on the federal judiciary. He listened to the arguments.
The case’s background
In October 2025 Currie was appointed to hear James’ and Comey’s challenges to the indictments, brought in Virginia federal courts. Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals Chief Judge Albert Diaz appointed Currie because of possible conflicts of interest in the case by Virginia federal judges, an order in the case said. The Fourth Circuit is made up of Virginia, West Virginia, Maryland and the Carolinas.
In her ruling, Currie wrote that the interim prosecutor, Halligan, who had no prosecutorial experience, had been improperly appointed as interim U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia and, therefore, the indictments of Comey and James that she secured from two federal grand juries were invalid.
“Ms. Halligan has been unlawfully serving in that role since September 22, 2025,” Currie wrote in her opinion. “I conclude that all actions flowing from Ms. Halligan’s defective appointment, including securing and signing Ms. James’s indictment, constitute unlawful exercises of executive power and must be set aside.”
Read more SC gave vouchers to thousands of students. Why can’t it measure their progress?
Although Halligan had no prosecutorial experience, the issue before Currie was not Halligan’s credentials, but whether her appointment to the interim U.S. attorney post by Bondi was legal under the Constitution and various congressional laws.
After examining the Constitution, congressional acts and numerous court decisions, Currie ruled that Halligan’s appointment to be U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia violated the Constitution because successive appointments to the post of interim U.S. attorney must be done by judges from that district.
That post already had one interim U.S. attorney, Erik Siebert, who was forced out of his job over his decision not to move forward with cases against Comey and James, according to news accounts.
Trump had made no secret of his wanting the Justice Department to secure indictments against Comey and James, both of whom had targeted Trump in investigations.
Last year, Trump posted and then deleted on social media a message to Bondi, directing her to pursue charges against Comey and James, according to Currie’s ruling.
Trump’s message said, “Pam: I have reviewed over 30 statements and posts saying that, essentially, ‘same old story as last time, all talk, no action. Nothing is being done. What about Comey, (California Sen.) Adam ‘Shifty’ Schiff, Leticia??? They’re all guilty as hell, but nothing is going to be done,” Trump wrote with offering any evidence.
Trump’s posting, Currie noted in her opinion, suggested that Bondi appoint Halligan. “Lindsey Halligan is a really good lawyer, and likes you, a lot,” Trump wrote.
Less than 48 hours later, on Sept. 22, Bondi appointed Halligan, a former White House aide and insurance lawyer, to be interim U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, Currie’s opinion noted.
Within days, Halligan secured an indictment against Comey, charging him with making false statements to Congress. Halligan went to a separate grand jury to get James indicted on charges of bank fraud and making false statements to a financial institution.
Comey was fired from his post as FBI director in 2017, during Trump’s first term, after Comey sought increased funding for an investigation into alleged Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election. Since then, Comey has been an outspoken critic of Trump.
James led a civil fraud investigation against Trump and his business empire that resulted in stiff financial penalties against the president after a 2024 trial.
The three judges on Tuesday’s Fourth Circuit panel were Diaz of North Carolina, and Henry Floyd and Jay Richardson, both of South Carolina.
Read more Is it legal for Chapin to limit Facebook comments on town council livestreams?
There is no timetable for a decision by the judges.