Fourth Circuit Reviews Dismissal of Indictments Due to U.S. Attorneys’ Appointments
The Fourth Circuit reviewed dismissal of indictments due to unlawful interim U.S. Attorney appointments.
Why it matters: Federal prosecutors and legal compliance teams must monitor this case, as it challenges the authority of U.S. Attorneys appointed without Senate confirmation and could impact ongoing and future prosecutions.
- On Sept. 15, 2026, Fourth Circuit heard arguments on dismissals of indictments against James Comey and Letitia James.
- Senior District Judge Cameron M. Currie dismissed these indictments in Nov. 2025, citing unlawful appointment of interim U.S. Attorney Lindsey Halligan.
- Federal law limits interim U.S. Attorneys to 120 days before Senate confirmation or court appointment is required.
- This follows the Ninth Circuit's August 2026 ruling that Sigal Chattah’s Nevada appointment bypassed Senate approval and was invalid, as reported by The Washington Post.
On September 15, 2026, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the legality of indictments dismissed due to the appointment status of interim U.S. Attorney Lindsey Halligan. The indictments targeted former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James.
Senior U.S. District Judge Cameron M. Currie dismissed these indictments in November 2025, ruling that Halligan's appointment violated federal statutes. Under 28 U.S.C. § 546, an interim U.S. Attorney may serve only 120 days; if the Senate does not confirm a nominee in that period, the authority to appoint shifts to the district court. Halligan served beyond this period without Senate confirmation or court appointment.
This case marks the latest judicial examination of former President Trump’s appointees, who assumed U.S. Attorney roles without Senate approval. Previously, the Ninth Circuit ruled in August 2026 that Sigal Chattah’s appointment in Nevada was unlawful for circumventing the confirmation process. The Washington Post detailed the ruling, which underscored that appointment powers lie with the President and Senate, not solely the Attorney General or courts.
The Fourth Circuit's decision could affirm limits on executive appointment authority and validate or invalidate prosecutions initiated under these interim appointments. Legal professionals should monitor this case closely, as it affects federal prosecution standards and the constitutional balance between executive appointment powers and Senate advice and consent.
By the numbers:
- 120 days — maximum interim U.S. Attorney tenure without Senate confirmation before court appointment
- September 15, 2026 — date of Fourth Circuit oral arguments on indictment dismissals
- August 2026 — Ninth Circuit ruling invalidating interim U.S. Attorney appointment in Nevada
Yes, but: The Fourth Circuit decision is pending; outcomes may vary based on differing interpretations of appointment statutes and constitutional provisions.
What's next: The Fourth Circuit is expected to issue a ruling later in 2026, which could set binding precedent for appointment and prosecution authorities.