Poli Alert Politics & Civics
Related Articles
A federal judge on Tuesday ordered Trump ally Lindsey Halligan to explain why she continues to identify herself as the U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia despite a prior court ruling that found her appointment unconstitutional.
U.S. District Judge David Novak issued a three-page order demanding that Halligan justify her continued use of the title, even though another judge ruled in November that she was unlawfully appointed to the post. Novak’s order was issued sua sponte — on the court’s own initiative — rather than at the request of defense attorneys, an unusual step underscoring the seriousness of the dispute.
Halligan, who unsuccessfully prosecuted former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James, is still listed as U.S. attorney in official Justice Department filings.
The order was filed in a criminal case involving a suspect charged last month with carjacking and attempted bank robbery. Novak gave Halligan seven days to submit a written response “explaining the basis for [her] identification of herself as the United States Attorney, notwithstanding Judge Currie’s contrary ruling.”
“She shall also set forth the reasons why this Court should not strike Ms. Halligan’s identification of herself as United States Attorney from the indictment in this matter,” Novak wrote.
The judge further ordered Halligan to explain why her continued identification does not constitute a “false or misleading statement,” and he required that Halligan personally sign the response — a move that legal experts say signals potential disciplinary consequences.
Prior Ruling Found Appointment Unconstitutional
In late November, U.S. District Judge Cameron McGowan Currie ruled that the Justice Department violated the Constitution in appointing Halligan as U.S. attorney, concluding that her appointment did not comply with the Appointments Clause.
Currie dismissed criminal cases against both Comey and James, finding that Halligan lacked lawful authority to act.
“All actions flowing from Ms. Halligan’s defective appointment, including securing and signing Mr. Comey’s indictment, were unlawful exercises of executive power,” Currie wrote. She issued a similar ruling in the James case, stating that Halligan exercised authority she “did not lawfully possess.”
Although the Justice Department has appealed Currie’s ruling, Novak emphasized that the decision remains binding because it has not been stayed.
“Absent a stay, Judge Currie’s ruling constitutes binding precedent within this district and is not subject to being ignored,” Novak wrote.
Growing Judicial Frustration
Novak is not the first judge in the Eastern District of Virginia to express frustration with Halligan’s continued assertion of authority. At least one judge has begun placing an asterisk next to Halligan’s name on court filings, accompanied by a citation referencing Currie’s November ruling.
The dispute raises broader questions about the validity of prosecutions signed by Halligan and the Justice Department’s continued recognition of her authority despite an adverse constitutional ruling.
Novak did not set a hearing date but warned that Halligan’s response could determine whether the court takes further action, including striking her name from indictments or pursuing disciplinary remedies.
