The question before the appeals court
A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit is hearing the Justice Department's effort to revive criminal cases against former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James. Both cases were dismissed in November 2025 after U.S. District Judge Cameron McGowan Currie found that Lindsey Halligan had been unlawfully appointed interim U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia.
The central appellate issue is institutional: whether the attorney general had statutory and constitutional authority to install Halligan after an earlier interim appointment expired, and whether her grand-jury work could be ratified later. It is not an evidentiary trial on Comey's alleged congressional statements or James's mortgage-related conduct.
Why appointment mechanics can end a prosecution
Federal prosecutors exercise sovereign power, including presenting evidence to a grand jury and signing indictments. Appointment rules specify who may wield that authority. Currie concluded Halligan was not validly serving when she acted alone before the grand juries and rejected the government's proposed after-the-fact cure.
DOJ argues that the ruling unduly restricts the attorney general's power to fill vacancies and could disrupt interim appointments nationwide. The defendants answer that the government's theory would permit the executive branch to evade Senate confirmation indefinitely. The panel must interpret the appointment statutes alongside the Constitution's Appointments Clause and decide whether any defect requires dismissal.
Dismissed without prejudice is not an acquittal
The district court dismissed both indictments without prejudice. That means the ruling did not establish innocence and does not carry the same finality as an acquittal after trial. In principle, prosecutors may seek a new indictment through a lawfully appointed official, although statutes of limitation and other procedural defenses may restrict what can be refiled.
Comey and James say the cases were political retaliation by President Donald Trump. That claim supplies important context because Trump publicly targeted both officials. Still, motive allegations are distinct from the appointment question on appeal. A ruling for DOJ would restore or permit the prosecutions; it would not prove the charges.
How to read the next court action
Oral argument is not a decision. Questions from judges can test weak points without predicting the final vote. The reliable sequence is the audio or transcript, a written opinion, and then any petition for rehearing or Supreme Court review.
Readers should look for three holdings: whether Halligan's appointment was valid, whether later ratification can cure her actions, and what remedy applies if it cannot. A narrow procedural ruling may have consequences for other interim prosecutors, but sweeping claims about presidential immunity, guilt or exoneration would go beyond the case the panel is hearing.
Sources and further reading
Reuters: Fourth Circuit hearing preview ↗
Fourth Circuit: oral-argument calendars and recordings ↗
CourtListener: public Comey appeal docket ↗
PBS NewsHour: November 2025 dismissal ruling ↗
Wikimedia Commons: official Comey portrait and public-domain record ↗