• U.S. District Judge David Novak gave Lindsey Halligan seven days to explain why she still identifies as U.S. Attorney
• Order came on judge’s own initiative in carjacking case rather than at defense request
• November ruling found Halligan’s appointment violated Constitution, dismissing Comey and James indictments

RICHMOND, VA (TDR) — A Trump-appointed federal judge issued an unusual order Tuesday demanding Lindsey Halligan explain why she continues identifying herself as U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia despite a previous court ruling that her appointment violated the Constitution.

U.S. District Judge David Novak, appointed by President Donald Trump during his first term, gave Halligan seven days to respond in writing and warned that her actions may constitute false or misleading statements subject to disciplinary proceedings.

Judge Acts on Own Initiative

The three-page order came in a carjacking and attempted bank robbery case where Halligan signed the indictment last month, identifying herself as the district’s U.S. Attorney. Novak’s directive was notable because he issued it independently rather than responding to defense attorneys’ motions.

“The Court hereby DIRECTS Ms. Halligan to file, within seven (7) days of the issuance of this Order, a pleading explaining the basis for Ms. Halligan’s identification of herself as the United States Attorney, notwithstanding Judge Currie’s contrary ruling.”

Freedom-Loving Beachwear by Red Beach Nation - Save 10% With Code RVM10

The order specifically addressed whether Halligan’s continued use of the title constitutes misconduct, citing attorneys’ obligations regarding truthful statements to the court.

“Ms. Halligan shall further explain why her identification does not constitute a false or misleading statement.”

November Ruling Found Appointment Unlawful

U.S. District Judge Cameron McGowan Currie ruled in late November that the Justice Department violated the Constitution by appointing Halligan as interim U.S. Attorney. That finding led to dismissal of criminal cases against former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James, both Trump critics.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE THE DUPREE REPORT

Currie’s ruling determined 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 similar language in the James case, stating Halligan exercised power she “did not lawfully possess.”

The constitutional problem arose from federal law limiting interim U.S. attorneys to 120 days without Senate confirmation unless the judiciary extends the period. The court found that Erik Siebert, Halligan’s predecessor, had already served the interim period when Trump appointed Halligan, making her subsequent appointment illegal.

Binding Precedent Cannot Be Ignored

Novak acknowledged Tuesday that the government has appealed Currie’s November ruling but emphasized that without a stay being issued, the order remains in effect across the district.

“Consequently, it remains the binding precedent in this district and is not subject to being ignored.”

The Justice Department did not immediately respond to requests for comment Tuesday night. Attorney General Pam Bondi has defended Halligan and accused federal judges of waging a “campaign of bias and hostility” against the prosecutor.

Other Judges Express Frustration

Novak’s order represents the latest instance of judicial frustration with Halligan’s continued use of the U.S. Attorney title. Other judges in the Eastern District of Virginia have previously expressed concerns in open court, with at least one judge now placing an asterisk next to Halligan’s name on every court document that references Currie’s November ruling.

The DOJ website continues listing Halligan as U.S. Attorney, and she maintains that identification on her social media accounts. In late December, she signed legal filings with the title, including one document containing a misspelling that identified her location as “Virgina.”

Background on Controversial Appointment

Halligan, 36, served as Trump’s personal attorney on civil matters and had no prosecutorial experience before her September appointment. She was sworn in as interim U.S. Attorney after Siebert was pushed out over his refusal to bring cases against Trump’s perceived enemies, citing lack of evidence.

Within weeks of taking office, Halligan secured indictments against Comey and James. However, courts later criticized her handling of those cases, noting a “disturbing pattern of profound investigative missteps.” The government acknowledged Halligan committed significant procedural errors, including that the full grand jury that charged Comey never saw the version of the indictment she signed and submitted to the court.

In early November, Attorney General Bondi attempted to shore up the indictments by giving Halligan the additional title of “special attorney,” which the administration claimed applied retroactively to September. That effort failed when Currie ruled the appointment violated constitutional requirements.

Senate Confirmation Uncertain

The White House has started the process of seeking standard Senate confirmation for Halligan, which could potentially render Currie’s ruling moot before appeals are resolved. However, Halligan’s confirmation prospects remain unclear.

Neither of Virginia’s Democratic senators has indicated willingness to support her nomination with a “blue slip,” an internal Senate procedure that effectively gives home-state senators veto power over judicial and U.S. Attorney nominees. Senate Majority Leader John Thune has refused Trump’s demands to eliminate the blue slip process.

Can a federal prosecutor continue exercising authority after a court rules their appointment unconstitutional, or does judicial precedent require immediate cessation of duties?

Freedom-Loving Beachwear by Red Beach Nation - Save 10% With Code RVM10