RICHMOND, Va. — The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals hears arguments Tuesday, Sept. 15, 2026, on the Justice Department’s bid to revive dismissed indictments of former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James — a fight that turns less on the underlying charges than on who may wield federal prosecutorial power without Senate confirmation, the Washington Examiner reported.

At issue is whether then–Attorney General Pam Bondi lawfully installed Lindsey Halligan as interim U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia after the statutory 120-day window for an attorney general’s interim pick had already run. Senior U.S. District Judge Cameron McGowan Currie dismissed both cases in November 2025, finding Halligan’s appointment violated 28 U.S.C. § 546 and the Constitution’s Appointments Clause. Currie ruled Halligan lacked authority to secure or sign the indictments and that the attorney general — now Todd Blanche — could not ratify those acts after the fact. The dismissals were without prejudice.

Under Section 546, the attorney general may appoint an interim U.S. attorney for up to 120 days; once that period expires, appointment power shifts to the district court until a Senate-confirmed prosecutor is installed, as the Congressional Research Service summarized in a December 2025 Legal Sidebar. Currie concluded the statute allows only one attorney-general 120-day appointment per vacancy — here, predecessor Erik S. Siebert’s — and that power does not revert to the Justice Department if a court-appointed or interim prosecutor later leaves. Bondi’s September 2025 appointment of Halligan came after Siebert left amid reluctance to bring the Comey and James cases; the administration contends he was ultimately fired.

Comey was charged with making a false statement and obstructing Congress related to testimony about leaks of sensitive information. James was separately charged with bank fraud and false-statement counts tied to a Norfolk, Virginia, mortgage. Both pleaded not guilty. The 4th Circuit consolidated the appeals for the limited purpose of deciding Halligan’s authority; the three-judge panel is expected to be disclosed the morning of argument, the Examiner reported when the hearing was set.

The dispute sits inside a broader clash over temporary U.S. attorneys. One week ago the administration petitioned the Supreme Court over a related 9th Circuit ruling that disqualified Sigal Chattah from leading prosecutions in Nevada after the Justice Department tried to keep her in place via a first-assistant designation and broad delegation under the Federal Vacancies Reform Act. The justices have not decided whether to hear that case.

Cato Institute constitutional scholar Thomas Berry told the Examiner that continual resets of interim authority would gut the Senate’s role:

“If you could continually reset that time, or if you could immediately fire the court’s pick for a U.S. attorney and replace that person with someone the president wants, then there would be no incentive for the president to put someone before the Senate,” Berry said. “You want these prosecutorial decisions to be made by people who have been vetted by the Senate. Everybody who is in there who was not vetted by the Senate should be, at most, a placeholder and should be there for as limited a time as possible.”

Article III Project founder Mike Davis, a Trump ally and former Senate Judiciary nominations counsel, framed the cases as a test of who controls the executive branch’s prosecutors:

“These cases will decide whether the duly elected president of the United States gets to run his executive branch, including picking his U.S. attorneys, or whether unelected Democratic judges get to do it,” Davis told the Examiner. “If Democratic senators refuse to confirm the president’s picks to run the Justice Department, the president should at least be able to appoint his people to acting positions.”

Libertarian skeptics of concentrated federal power have long warned that prosecutors who skip Senate advice and consent concentrate charging discretion in the White House while short-circuiting the Appointments Clause’s structural check. Permanent U.S. attorneys are principal officers; interim workarounds that stretch beyond a brief placeholder role risk turning confirmation into optional theater. Supporters of the administration’s approach argue blue-slip obstruction and partisan delays leave presidents with no practical way to staff Justice Department districts — and that elected executives, not district judges, should pick their prosecutors.

If the 4th Circuit affirms Currie, the Justice Department would have to start over with a prosecutor whose appointment survives judicial review — or drop the cases. If it reverses, the original indictments could revive. Either way, Tuesday’s argument is less about Comey or James personally than about whether statute and Constitution still force the White House to face the Senate before concentrating federal charging power in a preferred interim hand.

Sources