WASHINGTON — The Justice Department blasted a federal judge Tuesday for ordering it to explain why Trump loyalist Lindsey Halligan continues to refer to herself as a U.S. attorney despite a court ruling that said she was unlawfully serving in the role.
The Justice Department, in a written response to an order from U.S. District Judge David Novak, accused Novak, a Trump appointee, of initiating an "inquisition" into Halligan's official signature in court filings, which refers to her as "United States Attorney and Special Attorney" in the Eastern District of Virginia.
Novak's order, the Justice Department said, "posits that the United States’ continued assertion of its legal position that Ms. Halligan properly serves as the United States Attorney amounts to a factual misrepresentation that could trigger attorney discipline."
The Justice Department filing, submitted by Attorney General Pam Bondi, Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche and Halligan, says the "thinly veiled threat to use attorney discipline to cudgel the Executive Branch into conforming its legal position in all criminal prosecutions to the views of a single district judge is a gross abuse of power and an affront to the separation of powers."
In late November, U.S. District Judge Cameron McGowan Currie, a Clinton appointee, ruled 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 former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James. Halligan, who had no prosecutorial experience before she was named one of the nation’s top federal prosecutors, presented the cases to a grand jury on her own — a deviation from Justice Department norms.
Novak's order questioning her role stemmed from a case involving a suspect in a carjacking and attempted bank robbery case who was indicted last month. In that case, Novak gave Halligan seven days to respond in writing explaining why she has identified "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 order went on to say, “Ms. Halligan shall further explain why her identification does not constitute a false or misleading statement.” Novak alluded to potential disciplinary action and demanded that Halligan sign her response.
The Justice Department’s response to Novak, which included Halligan's signature, said, “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.”
The response challenged Novak’s view that the Comey and James dismissal orders potentially prohibited Halligan “from performing the functions of or holding herself out as the United States Attorney,” that the government is not required to consider Currie’s opinion law in any other case and that Novak “made an even more rudimentary legal error in describing Judge Currie’s orders as binding precedent in this district.”
“It is the United States’ position that Ms. Halligan was properly appointed as interim United States Attorney — a position the United States has maintained in part based on internal legal advice from the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel,” the Justice Department response said. “That Judge Currie dismissed two indictments based on her disagreement with that position does not prevent the United States from otherwise maintaining it.”
The Justice Department filed the response Tuesday a day after news emerged that the Justice Department had ousted the No. 2 official in the Eastern District of Virginia, Robert McBride, amid a debate over how to revive the Comey case now that it has been dismissed. Four other appointments of acting U.S. attorneys have also been ruled unlawful.
Other federal judges have previously expressed their frustration with Halligan, with one now putting an asterisk next to Halligan’s name on every court document and next to it referring to Currie's ruling.
