The federal indictment against former FBI Director James Comey may be in jeopardy after a key admission from acting U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia Lindsey Halligan raised questions about whether the grand jury ever properly approved the charges.

Comey was indicted on September 25 on two federal counts, one for making false statements while testifying before Congress and the other for obstruction of justice, CNN reported.

The indictment accuses Comey of obstructing a congressional investigation into the disclosure of sensitive information in violation of 18 USC 1505. It also alleges that Comey made a false statement when he denied authorizing someone at the FBI to serve as an anonymous source to leak classified materials to outlets, including the New York Times.

The filing alleges that Comey authorized the leaks during the height of the Russia investigation, a period that has remained politically charged since his removal from office.

The case has intensified since the indictment was unveiled only days after President Trump announced he would appoint Halligan as the top prosecutor in the district.

Halligan replaced interim attorney Erik Siebert, who resigned after declining to pursue indictments against Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James.

Comey’s legal team has since moved to dismiss the charges.

His lawyers argue that Halligan’s appointment was unlawful and that her involvement invalidates the proceedings.

They also contend that the case should be dismissed on the grounds of vindictive prosecution.

During a hearing on Wednesday, Comey’s attorney Michael Dreeben began by telling the court that Trump’s long-standing “hate or animosity” toward Comey for the Russia investigation created a political motive to prosecute him.

Dreeben argued that the criminal process had been “weaponized” against his client.

DOJ prosecutor Tyler Lemons disputed that characterization.

Lemons said the charges were straightforward and based solely on evidence related to Comey’s testimony.

Lemons told the court that the president’s public comments reflected his belief in Comey’s guilt, not instructions to federal prosecutors.

A significant development emerged when Halligan testified about the grand jury process.

Halligan revealed that the full grand jury in the Eastern District of Virginia never reviewed the final indictment against Comey.

According to her testimony, the grand jury initially declined one of the counts.

After that decision, Halligan said she presented a revised version to only the foreperson in a magistrate’s courtroom for signature.

Lemons countered by arguing that the signature did not constitute a new indictment. He said it was the continuation of the same charging process.

Dreeben sharply rejected that interpretation. He told the court there is “no indictment” if the full grand jury did not review and vote on the final version. He further argued that the statute of limitations on the lying charges has now expired.

The challenge could create a pivotal procedural hurdle for the Justice Department. Following the arguments, Judge Michael Nachmanoff said the issue was “too weighty” to rule on immediately.

He postponed his decision until at least Wednesday.

The judge ordered the Justice Department to file a written response by 5 p.m. Eastern Time.

The developments place renewed attention on Halligan, a former insurance attorney in Florida whose appointment sparked immediate reaction after her elevation to acting U.S. Attorney.

Halligan has continued to defend the charges. She said the indictment reflects the seriousness of the alleged conduct. She said the evidence shows “intentional, criminal acts and tremendous breaches of the public’s trust.”

“No one is above the law,” Halligan told reporters after the indictment was announced.

The case now awaits Judge Nachmanoff’s ruling, which could determine whether the criminal proceedings against the former FBI director continue or collapse on procedural grounds.

The outcome is expected to have major implications for both the Justice Department and the broader political debate surrounding the origins of the Russia investigation.