WASHINGTON — In a dramatic turn in several politically sensitive legal battles, attorneys representing former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James have mounted a direct challenge to the legality of the U.S. attorney’s appointment responsible for overseeing Trump-era investigations against them. The move could have sweeping implications across multiple federal cases tied to the previous administration.
The challenges were filed this week in federal court, arguing that the U.S. attorney who initiated several high-profile inquiries lacked proper constitutional authority due to procedural flaws in the appointment process. Lawyers say the oversight violated the Appointments Clause and may invalidate actions taken during that period.
The Core Argument: Appointment “Not Constitutionally Valid”
Comey’s legal team argues that the acting U.S. attorney who launched investigative reviews during the Trump administration was appointed without Senate confirmation and held the position longer than legally allowed under federal statute.
A key portion of the filing states:
“An acting U.S. attorney cannot exercise the full powers of a Senate-confirmed official for extended periods without violating the Appointments Clause of the Constitution.”
Letitia James’s attorneys filed a parallel challenge, contending that politically motivated prosecutorial decisions were made under an office that lacked “proper constitutional authority” from the outset.
Why This Matters Now
The challenges come at a moment when several Trump-era legal actions are being reexamined in courts, congressional committees, and public forums. If judges determine that the U.S. attorney’s appointment was unlawful, multiple prosecutions, subpoenas, investigative decisions, and filings could be thrown out entirely or forced into retrial.
Legal analysts say the ramifications could be enormous.
Constitutional scholar Dan Reynolds said:
“If the appointment is ruled invalid, every major action taken under that office may be subject to dismissal. That could reshape ongoing political and criminal battles tied to the previous administration.”
Political Tensions Run High
The filings have already triggered political backlash in Washington. Trump allies dismissed the challenges as “desperate tactics” to derail investigations into alleged misconduct. They argue that the acting U.S. attorney was lawfully appointed and that the challenges are an attempt to discredit Trump-era oversight.
Democratic lawmakers counter that the Trump administration repeatedly relied on acting officials to bypass Senate confirmations — a practice they say weakened institutional checks and expanded executive power beyond constitutional limits.
Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD) said:
“This was part of a pattern. Acting officials were installed to pursue political objectives, not justice. Courts must address this.”
Legal Community Watching Closely
This is not the first time the legality of acting officials has been challenged, but the stakes are uniquely high. The cases involve two of the most politically visible figures in American government — a former FBI Director and a sitting state attorney general who has repeatedly clashed with former President Trump.
Comey has long disputed allegations made against him following his controversial dismissal in 2017. Letitia James, meanwhile, has spearheaded civil and criminal actions involving Trump’s business empire.
If their challenges succeed, it could cast doubt on several federal actions taken against them between 2018 and 2020.
What Happens Next?
Federal judges are expected to review the motions in the coming weeks. Legal experts say the courts may demand internal Justice Department memos, appointment records, and communications surrounding the U.S. attorney’s installation.
The Justice Department has declined to comment publicly but is expected to defend the appointment’s legality.
As the country enters another contentious election cycle, the challenges raise serious questions about executive authority, constitutional compliance, and the integrity of the U.S. justice system during a turbulent political era.
