A Clinton-appointed federal judge has ordered the Department of Justice to turn over all internal records related to U.S. Attorney Lindsey Halligan’s involvement in the criminal cases against former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James.

Judge Cameron McGowan Currie, who sits in the District of South Carolina, issued the order Tuesday following requests from defense lawyers in both cases. The directive requires the Justice Department to submit, by 5:00 p.m. on November 3, all documents and grand jury materials showing Halligan’s role in the indictments — but only for private judicial review, shielding the contents from both defense counsel and the public.

The sealed, in camera review will take place in Judge Currie’s chambers at the Matthew J. Perry U.S. Courthouse in Columbia, South Carolina.

The order comes after Letitia James, who was indicted last week in Norfolk, Virginia, for alleged misuse of federal and charitable funds, filed a motion to dismiss the case on constitutional grounds. James argued that Halligan’s appointment as Interim U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia violated the Appointments Clause of the Constitution and the federal statute governing interim federal prosecutors, 28 U.S.C. § 546.

“Ms. Halligan had no lawful authority to bring charges in this case,” James’ attorney wrote in her motion. “Her appointment was invalid under both statute and the Constitution, rendering the indictment null.”

James also requested that her challenge be consolidated with a similar motion filed by James Comey, who was indicted by a federal grand jury earlier this year for alleged obstruction and classified document mishandling.

Last week, Judge Jamar Walker, a Biden appointee in the Eastern District of Virginia, approved James’ request and formally transferred the motions to Judge Currie — the same judge now overseeing the joint review.

Comey’s motion, first filed in September, also challenged Halligan’s authority to sign his indictment, calling her role “constitutionally defective.” The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals previously ordered that the matter be reassigned to Currie for “judicial efficiency.”

Judge Currie’s latest order states that determining “the extent of the indictment signer’s involvement in the grand jury proceedings” is essential to resolving whether Halligan’s appointment was legitimate.

“Accordingly, the Government is directed to submit, no later than Monday, November 3, 2025, at 5:00 pm, for in camera review, all documents relating to the indictment signer’s participation in the grand jury proceedings, along with complete grand jury transcripts,” Currie wrote.

“In camera review is appropriate given the secrecy requirements applicable to grand jury proceedings.”

The decision effectively places the fate of two of the Biden administration’s most politically explosive prosecutions — involving a former FBI director and a sitting Democratic attorney general — in the hands of a single Clinton-appointed judge.

Halligan, a former Florida attorney who rose to prominence for her work during the Trump administration’s investigations into FBI misconduct, was appointed interim U.S. Attorney in early 2025 amid a leadership shake-up at Main Justice. Her appointment bypassed Senate confirmation, relying instead on an internal designation by the Attorney General.

Under 28 U.S.C. § 546, a U.S. Attorney may be appointed by the Attorney General for up to 120 days, after which the district court for that jurisdiction may extend or renew the appointment.

A Justice Department spokesperson declined to comment on the pending order, citing the confidential nature of grand jury materials. However, sources familiar with the process confirmed that DOJ attorneys are preparing a classified submission to comply with the court’s November 3 deadline.

Legal analysts note that while in camera reviews are common when dealing with grand jury secrecy, Judge Currie’s sweeping demand for “all documents” relating to Halligan’s grand jury participation suggests a rare degree of judicial skepticism toward the DOJ’s conduct.

“This indicates the court is taking the Appointments Clause challenge seriously,” said constitutional law professor Jonathan Adler. “If the judge finds Halligan’s appointment invalid, it could undermine multiple federal prosecutions, not just these two.”

Judge Currie’s order leaves several key questions unanswered — most notably, whether her review could ultimately lead to the suppression or invalidation of the indictments against Comey and Letitia James.

For now, both cases remain in procedural limbo as the Justice Department acts to meet the court’s document deadline.