A federal judge Tuesday ordered Trump ally Lindsey Halligan to explain why she continues to call herself the U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia even though another judge determined in November that she had been unlawfully appointed to the position.
U.S. District Judge David Novak of Richmond issued a three-page order demanding to know why Halligan is still serving in the post. Halligan, who unsuccessfully prosecuted former FBI Direct James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James, is also referred to as U.S. attorney by the Justice Department in official documents.
The judge's order is unusual because he issued it on his own, not at the request of defense attorneys. It came in a case involving a carjacking and attempted bank robbery suspect who was indicted last month.
Novak gave Halligan seven days to respond in writing “explaining the basis for ... 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.”
The judge’s order goes on to say Halligan "shall further explain why her identification does not constitute a false or misleading statement." Novak also alluded to potential disciplinary action and demanded that Halligan sign her response.
The U.S. attorney’s office did not immediately respond to a request for comment Tuesday night.
In late November, U.S. District Judge Cameron McGowan Currie found that the Justice Department had violated the Constitution by appointing Halligan as U.S. attorney. That finding led to the dismissal of criminal cases against Comey and James.
Currie ruled that all actions “flowing from Ms. Halligan’s defective appointment, including securing and signing Mr. Comey’s indictment, were unlawful exercises of executive power.” She issued a separate, similar ruling in the James case, saying Halligan had exercised power she “did not lawfully possess.”
Novak acknowledged Tuesday that the November ruling regarding Halligan’s appointment had been appealed but said that since the order had not been paused, it remains the “binding precedent of the district and is not subject to being ignored.”
Other judges in the district have previously expressed their frustration with Halligan, including one who now places an asterisk next to Halligan’s name on every court document and next to it refers to Currie's ruling from November.
