U.S. District Judge David Novak ordered Lindsey Halligan to explain within seven days why she still identifies as the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia after a November ruling found her appointment unconstitutional. Novak issued the order on his own initiative in a case involving alleged carjacking and attempted bank robbery and demanded a signed, written response. The earlier ruling by Judge Cameron McGowan Currie led to dismissals of prosecutions tied to Halligan and remains binding in the district while it is under appeal.
Judge Orders Lindsey Halligan To Explain Why She Still Calls Herself U.S. Attorney After Court Found Appointment Unlawful
Lindsey Halligan had no prosecutorial experience before she joined the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Eastern District of Virginia as an attorney. (Al Drago / Getty Images file)
A federal judge on Tuesday ordered Lindsey Halligan — a controversial Justice Department prosecutor and ally of former President Donald Trump — to explain why she continues to identify herself as the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, despite a November ruling that found her appointment unlawful.
U.S. District Judge David Novak of Richmond issued a three-page, sua sponte order asking Halligan to justify her use of the title and to state why the court should not remove her identification as the United States Attorney from an indictment in a pending criminal case involving alleged carjacking and attempted bank robbery.
Novak gave Halligan seven days to file a signed, written response “explaining the basis for ... identification of herself as the United States Attorney, notwithstanding Judge Currie’s contrary ruling.” The order also asks Halligan to explain why that identification does not constitute a false or misleading statement and references potential disciplinary consequences.
The Justice Department has continued to refer to Halligan as the U.S. attorney in official filings despite U.S. District Judge Cameron McGowan Currie’s November finding that the department violated the Constitution when it appointed Halligan. Currie’s ruling led to the dismissal of criminal matters tied to Halligan’s appointment, including cases involving former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James. In Currie’s words, actions "flowing from Ms. Halligan’s defective appointment... were unlawful exercises of executive power."
Novak acknowledged that Currie’s decision is on appeal but noted that it has not been stayed and therefore remains binding precedent in the district court. The judge’s order — issued on his own initiative rather than at the request of defense counsel — underscores continued judicial concern about the legality of Halligan’s authority.
Other judges in the Eastern District of Virginia have voiced frustration over the matter; one judge has reportedly begun adding an asterisk next to Halligan’s name on court documents and citing Currie’s November decision alongside it.
The U.S. Attorney’s Office did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Key Quote: "All actions flowing from Ms. Halligan’s defective appointment, including securing and signing Mr. Comey’s indictment, were unlawful exercises of executive power," Judge Currie wrote in November.
Help us improve.
