Top officials at the Justice Department are backing Lindsey Halligan, a U.S. attorney whose appointment has faced legal challenges. A federal judge recently questioned her continued use of the title after ruling that her appointment was invalid.
Judge David Novak from Richmond demanded Halligan explain her actions, giving her a week to respond. He noted that Halligan had described herself as both a U.S. attorney and a special attorney in an indictment last December.
Another judge, Cameron Currie, had previously deemed Halligan’s interim appointment unconstitutional, claiming it violated the Appointments Clause. Currie dismissed the cases Halligan initiated against former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James.
The Trump administration had used a statute allowing an interim U.S. attorney to serve only for 120 days. After Halligan’s predecessor, Erik Siebert, was appointed in January 2025, Currie determined that Halligan’s appointment lapsed after that period.
In response to Novak’s order, Halligan and other officials condemned the ruling as a misuse of power. They argued it unfairly threatened the integrity of legal proceedings.
Novak asserted that Currie’s ruling applies broadly, and the Justice Department responded by claiming Halligan should be allowed to use her title in cases beyond those specifically mentioned by Currie.
This legal struggle reflects broader tensions within the government about appointments and authority. Notably, Robert McBride, a federal prosecutor in Virginia, was recently dismissed after refusing to cooperate with the prosecution against Comey. It’s a reminder of the challenges faced by those navigating the intersection of law and politics.
Halligan, who previously worked in insurance law, was part of Trump’s legal team and joined the White House following the 2024 election. Since her appointment, she quickly indicted Comey for supposedly lying to Congress, and she faced similar challenges with the indictment against James.
As this situation unfolds, it reflects ongoing debates about the limits of executive power, judicial oversight, and the potential consequences of politicized legal actions. The outcomes of these cases could set important precedents for how such appointments are handled in the future.
For more information, check out the Court Listener’s documentation for details on these rulings.
