Lawyers for New York Attorney General Letitia James are accusing U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi of trying to rewrite history — literally. In a sharply worded court filing on Monday, James’s legal team said Bondi “bent space and time” to paper over what they call a constitutionally flawed appointment at the heart of a federal bank fraud case.
Why The Backdating?
At issue is Bondi’s Halloween order backdating the appointment of Lindsey Halligan, the prosecutor who signed the indictments against both James and former FBI Director James Comey, to September 22. The Justice Department described the move as a necessary “clarification” to remove any doubt about Halligan’s authority. In its filing, the DOJ said Bondi “personally ratified the indictments,” confirmed Halligan’s actions before the grand jury, and “cured any arguable flaw” in her original appointment.
Was Her Decision Unconstitutional?
The attorneys for James — Abbe Lowell and Andrew Bosse — called that argument absurd. They said Bondi’s move was an unconstitutional attempt to “fix” something that could not legally be fixed after the fact. “The Attorney General’s attempt to fix Ms. Halligan’s appointment is invalid on its face,” they wrote, adding that Bondi’s retroactive order “is a telling indication that the government knows Ms. Halligan’s actions were unauthorized, null, and void.”
Did Halligan Have The Necessary Authority?
The dispute centers on whether Halligan had the legal authority to act as a “supervising special attorney” when she presented the case to a grand jury. The team for James argues she did not — that she was, in effect, a private citizen at the time, lacking the legal status to bring charges. Their motion draws parallels to an earlier ruling that derailed former special counsel Jack Smith’s prosecution of Donald Trump under the Appointments Clause. That decision held that prosecutors serving in roles not formally approved under federal law could not exercise the powers of government attorneys. “The Executive Branch cannot retroactively appoint Ms. Halligan to positions she never held,” James’s filing said. “Nor can it ratify this illegitimate indictment or claim that Ms. Halligan — whose purported appointment plainly violated the Appointments Clause — was a de facto officer.” In other words, they argue, once the government admits it needs to rewrite the past to justify a prosecution, it has already lost the case. “The government’s series of novel maneuvers to attempt to clean up the mess only confirm that the indictment is doomed,” the defense wrote.
No Comment
Bondi’s office has not publicly commented on the filing. But DOJ officials have maintained that the backdated appointment was a formality meant to “eliminate technical ambiguity,” not an admission of wrongdoing. The stakes are high: if the court agrees with James’s argument, it could void not just this indictment but potentially call into question other prosecutions initiated under similar interim appointments.
