On November 24, 2025, Judge Cameron McGowan Currie issued a ruling that could send ripples through the legal and political landscape. The judge ordered the dismissal of a two-count indictment against New York Attorney General Letitia James, citing the unlawful appointment of the prosecutor who presented the case to the grand jury.
The Core of the Dispute
The case centers on the appointment of Lindsey Halligan as Interim U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia. Ms. Halligan, a former White House aide, secured the indictment against Ms. James on charges of bank fraud and making false statements to a financial institution. However, Judge Currie found that Ms. Halligan’s appointment was invalid, thus invalidating the indictment.
The Appointments Clause and Statutory Interpretation
The ruling hinges on two key legal principles: the Appointments Clause of the U.S. Constitution and the interpretation of 28 U.S.C. § 546, which governs the appointment of interim U.S. Attorneys.
The Appointments Clause dictates how federal officers are appointed. It distinguishes between “principal” officers, who require Presidential appointment with Senate confirmation, and “inferior” officers, whose appointment Congress can vest in the President, the courts, or the heads of departments. The judge, citing established precedent, determined that U.S. Attorneys are considered “inferior” officers.
The judge found that the Attorney General’s appointment of Ms. Halligan violated 28 U.S.C. § 546. This statute outlines the process for appointing interim U.S. Attorneys when a vacancy arises. The judge’s interpretation of the statute was that the Attorney General could only appoint an interim U.S. Attorney for 120 days. After that period, the authority to appoint an interim U.S. Attorney shifts to the district court.
In this case, the judge noted that the initial 120-day period for an interim U.S. Attorney had expired before Ms. Halligan was appointed. Therefore, the judge concluded that the Attorney General’s subsequent appointment of Ms. Halligan was invalid.
The Timeline and Key Events
The court opinion lays out a detailed timeline, starting with the resignation of the previous U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, Jessica Aber, on January 20, 2025. This was followed by the appointment of Erik Siebert as Interim U.S. Attorney. Mr. Siebert’s 120-day term was set to expire on May 21, 2025. The district court then exercised its authority to extend Mr. Siebert’s role.
However, Mr. Siebert resigned on September 19, 2025. News reports suggested he had expressed concerns about pursuing charges against Ms. James.
On September 22, 2025, the Attorney General issued an order appointing Lindsey Halligan as Interim U.S. Attorney. It was this appointment that the judge later deemed unlawful.
On October 9, 2025, a grand jury indicted Letitia James. Ms. Halligan was the only prosecutor who presented the case to the grand jury.
The Government’s Arguments and the Judge’s Rejection
The government argued that the Attorney General could make multiple interim appointments under Section 546, and that Ms. Halligan’s appointment was therefore lawful. The government also argued that, even if Ms. Halligan’s initial appointment was flawed, her actions should be considered valid under the “de facto officer doctrine.” Finally, the government contended that the Attorney General had subsequently ratified Ms. Halligan’s actions.
The judge rejected all of these arguments. The judge found that the statute clearly limited the Attorney General’s appointment power to the initial 120-day period. The judge also held that the de facto officer doctrine did not apply to Appointments Clause challenges and that the Attorney General’s attempt to ratify Ms. Halligan’s actions was ineffective because the Attorney General lacked the authority to authorize those actions in the first place.
The Remedy: Dismissal Without Prejudice
The judge determined that the appropriate remedy was to dismiss the indictment against Ms. James without prejudice. This means the government can potentially bring the charges again, but it must do so through a proper legal process, including a validly appointed prosecutor. The judge reasoned that this approach was consistent with Supreme Court precedent in Appointments Clause cases, which typically involves setting aside actions taken by unconstitutionally appointed officers and restoring the affected party to their previous position.
Potential Implications
This ruling has significant implications. It could impact other cases where the authority of interim U.S. Attorneys is challenged. It also highlights the importance of adhering to the Appointments Clause and the procedures established by Congress for appointing federal officials. The decision is likely to be appealed, and the outcome of that appeal will further clarify the law in this area.