Former FBI Director James B. Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James have separately asked a federal judge to toss criminal charges against them, arguing the prosecutor handling each case, Lindsey Halligan, was illegally appointed during the Trump administration.
The filings argue that the appointment of Lindsey Halligan lacked proper legal authority, and that any proceedings she initiated should be void. Both defendants are asking the court to dismiss charges on that procedural ground rather than litigate the underlying facts. The move shifts focus away from allegations and toward whether the prosecution itself followed the law.
At its core this is a narrow constitutional claim about who has the power to appoint prosecutors and how those appointments must be made. Republican legal thinkers will point out that precedent matters and that appointments made outside statutory or constitutional bounds can undermine the legitimacy of prosecutions. If the judge buys the argument, it could be a sweeping remedy that stops cases before evidence is ever tested at trial.
The timing of these dismissal motions matters politically as well as legally. From a conservative viewpoint, the move highlights selective enforcement and potential irregularities in how prosecutions are staffed and authorized. That line of argument feeds into a broader concern that prosecutorial power can be used asymmetrically unless courts enforce strict rules about appointments and chain of authority.
Procedural defenses like this are not about guilt or innocence, they are about the rule of law. A dismissal on appointment grounds would not exonerate anyone on the merits, but it would affirm that the government must follow its own rules. Republicans often argue that adherence to procedure is the best safeguard against politically motivated prosecutions.
The legal fight is likely to move quickly into questions about remedy and scope. Plaintiffs will push for wholesale dismissal of charges tied to Halligan, while prosecutors will narrow the issue or try to cure any defects. Appeals are almost certain if the district court takes an unexpected direction, which could push the matter up the judicial ladder and keep it in the headlines for months.
Beyond courtrooms, this dispute will play out in public perception and politics. Conservative voices will use the filing as evidence that the justice system needs firmer guardrails to prevent ad hoc appointments and partisan maneuvering. That narrative will be amplified in commentary and campaign messaging that insists the system must work the same for everyone.
The judge’s decision will hinge on statutory interpretation and constitutional text, not on public opinion, but reputational stakes are high. If the court rejects the appointment challenge, critics will say judges ignored clear defects; if the court grants it, defenders of the charges will complain the result lets powerful figures escape scrutiny. Either outcome will fuel debate about accountability and the proper limits of prosecutorial reach.
Legal experts will watch closely for how the court treats precedent about appointments, delegation, and cure doctrines that sometimes allow a defect to be fixed retroactively. For Republicans concerned about selective enforcement, a ruling that enforces strict appointment rules will be a win for legal predictability. Until then, the filings invite a high-stakes contest over process that could reshape the path these cases take and influence how future prosecutions are staffed.
