A federal judge has delivered a scathing rebuke to former Trump attorney Lindsey Halligan and senior Justice Department officials for their aggressive defence of her continued use of the "U.S. Attorney" title, despite a binding court ruling that found she is unlawfully serving in that capacity.
Judge Novak's Blistering Order
In a sharply worded order issued on Tuesday, Virginia District Judge David Novak condemned recent Justice Department filings as containing "a level of vitriol more appropriate for a cable news talk show" that "falls far beneath the level of advocacy expected from litigants in this Court, particularly the Department of Justice."
The judge ruled that Halligan's claim to the title of U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia "ignores a binding court order" and could potentially result in disciplinary action against those involved.
No Legal Basis for 'Charade'
Judge Novak was unequivocal in his assessment, stating that Halligan has "no legal basis" to continue what he described as a "charade" of representing herself as the legitimate U.S. Attorney for the district.
"And any such representation going forward can only be described as a false statement made in direct defiance of valid court orders," the judge wrote. "This charade of Ms. Halligan masquerading as the United States Attorney for this District in direct defiance of binding court orders must come to an end."
Background of the Controversial Appointment
The controversy stems from President Trump's nomination of his former personal lawyer as interim U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, following his public boasting about "firing" her predecessor who had resisted administration pressure to prosecute former FBI director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James.
Halligan moved quickly to bring indictments against both individuals shortly after assuming office, but a federal judge subsequently dismissed both cases and determined that Halligan was serving unlawfully in the role.
Unlawful Actions and Judicial Response
According to District Judge Cameron McGowan Currie's November order, because Halligan remained in office past the 120-day period permitted for interim U.S. attorneys, "all actions flowing from Ms. Halligan's defective appointment," including the cases against Comey and James, "were unlawful exercises of executive power and are hereby set aside."
Judge Novak had previously demanded that the Justice Department explain why Halligan continues to represent herself as the top federal prosecutor in the district despite this binding ruling, prompting what he characterised as a hostile response accusing him of making "rudimentary" legal errors and engaging in a "gross abuse of power."
Justice Department's Defiant Position
The Justice Department, in documents signed by Halligan and submitted by Attorney General Pam Bondi and Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche, maintained that "Ms. Halligan is the United States Attorney, and Judge Currie's ruling did not and could not require the United States to acquiesce to her contrary (and erroneous) legal reasoning outside of those cases."
"The bottom line is that Ms. Halligan has not 'misrepresented' anything and the Court is flat wrong to suggest that any change to the Government's signature block is warranted in this or any other case," department officials wrote last week.
Broader Pattern of Unlawful Appointments
Halligan represents just one example in what appears to be a broader pattern within the Trump administration. She is among at least five U.S. attorneys who have been determined to be serving unlawfully after being appointed by the president.
Notable cases include:
- Alina Habba, another former Trump attorney, who stepped down from her role as U.S. Attorney for New Jersey after several judges similarly determined she was unlawfully serving
- John Sarcone, the top federal prosecutor in the Northern District of New York, whom a federal judge determined this month was similarly serving unlawfully
- Trump-backed U.S. attorneys in Nevada and Los Angeles facing similar judicial challenges to their appointments
Judicial Frustration Mounts
Several other judges in the Virginia district have expressed frustration with Halligan's continued representation of herself as the legitimate prosecutor. Earlier this month, Virginia District Judge Leonie M. Brinkeman struck Halligan's name from a case, stating that "she should resign from the position at this point."
Meanwhile, judges in the Virginia district are actively soliciting applications for their own temporary U.S. attorney until the role is properly filled through legitimate processes.
Nomination Process Continues Amid Controversy
Despite the judicial rulings and mounting criticism, President Trump formally nominated Halligan for U.S. attorney this month. Late last year, she submitted her answers to a questionnaire from the Senate Judiciary Committee, which will consider her nomination before a potential full Senate vote.
White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt reinforced the administration's position in a statement last month, saying: "She's the President's nominee. It is our hope that she is confirmed and submitting her questionnaire is part of that process."
The ongoing conflict between the judiciary and the executive branch highlights significant tensions surrounding presidential appointments and the limits of temporary authority within the U.S. justice system.
