Jordan's Inquiry: How was Halligan able to be lawfully appointed after Jack Smith was removed from Trump's Florida case?

Judge Aileen Cannon dismissed Donald Trumps case involving classified documents, arguing that special counsel Jack Smith was appointed unlawfully. How, then, can the Justice Department justify Lindsey Halligans appointment in the cases involving James Comey and Letitia James? Lori

Federal judges have ruled that both Smith and Halligan were improperly appointed, though the legal reasoning differed in each case. The core issue in both situations revolves around the Constitutions appointments clause, which requires Senate confirmation for certain government roles. Legal debates have long persisted over which positions require this confirmation and the extent of presidential authority to install personnel without Senate approval.

When Cannon dismissed Trumps Florida case last year, she concluded that federal law did not authorize then-Attorney General Merrick Garland to appoint a special counsel like Smith, noting that Smith does not assist a United States Attorney but replaces the role of United States Attorney within his jurisdiction. Cannon argued that allowing Smiths appointment would bypass the Senates longstanding confirmation role and grant excessive power to the Executive Branch.

In defending Halligans appointment, the Justice Department tried to distinguish the cases, arguing that Cannon found Smiths appointment unconstitutional and irremediable because there was no statutorily created office to fill in the first place. The DOJ claimed that Halligans situation was different since the U.S. Attorneys office existed, and the question was whether Halligan had been properly installed.

U.S. District Judge Cameron McGowan Currie disagreed, ruling that Halligans appointment was invalid. Currie cited federal law allowing temporary 120-day appointments of U.S. attorneys, noting that the clock started on January 21 with the appointment of Erik Siebert, who was removed for resisting charges against Comey and James. When that clock expired on May 21, 2025, so too did the Attorney Generals appointment authority, Currie wrote. Consequently, I conclude that the Attorney Generals attempt to install Ms. Halligan as Interim U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia was invalid, and she has been unlawfully serving since September 22, 2025.

The legal analysis for Halligan differs from Smith because she was not a special counsel, yet both judges reached the same conclusion under the appointments clause: both prosecutors were serving unlawfully. The Supreme Court never addressed Cannons ruling on Smith because Trumps 2024 election cut short the appeal process. Depending on interpretation, Smith could be considered lawfully appointed while Halligan was not.

With Trumps case concluded, Smiths role remains a historical matter, whereas Halligans status is still contested. The DOJ indicated plans to appeal Curries ruling, though no appeal has been filed. Meanwhile, the department has sought to revive the James case with a new indictment, and another against Comey may also be pursued.

The Halligan decision has broader implications, as courts nationwide have increasingly ruled that prosecutors appointed without Senate confirmation are serving unlawfully. An appeals court recently rejected Alina Habbas attempt to lead New Jerseys office. Regardless of developments in Virginia, the Supreme Court could ultimately decide on the legality of Trump-appointed prosecutors nationwide, though it may not need to address Smiths appointment specifically in future rulings.

Author: Benjamin Carter