Judge Orders Halligan to Defend Use of U.S. Attorney Title in Court

A federal judge in Richmond, Virginia, has given Lindsey Halligan seven days to explain why she keeps calling herself U.S. attorney in court papers. This order comes after another judge ruled that her appointment to the top prosecutor job in eastern Virginia broke federal law and the Constitution. Halligan, a former personal lawyer for Donald Trump, stepped into the role last September amid efforts to pursue cases against Trump's critics.

Background

Lindsey Halligan entered the spotlight last year when President Trump named her interim U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia. This area covers key spots like Norfolk and Alexandria, where many federal cases play out. Trump made the move after removing Erik Siebert, his earlier pick for the job. Siebert had been interim U.S. attorney since January 2025 but did not pursue indictments against targets like former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James.

Halligan, who had no prior experience as a prosecutor, worked as Trump's lawyer in a case over classified documents brought by special counsel Jack Smith. Once in place, she quickly moved forward with grand jury indictments against Comey and James in early December 2025. These cases aimed at alleged misconduct tied to Trump's grievances.

Federal law sets strict rules for filling U.S. attorney spots when no Senate-confirmed person is in place. Under 28 U.S.C. § 546, an interim appointee by the attorney general can serve 120 days. After that, district judges pick someone. Siebert's 120 days ran out, which set the stage for the later fight over Halligan.

In November 2025, U.S. District Judge Cameron McGowan Currie looked at one of Halligan's cases. She ruled that Halligan's appointment on September 22 violated the law and the Constitution's Appointments Clause. That clause requires Senate approval for key officers. Currie said all actions from Halligan's time, including the Comey and James indictments, had to be dropped. The Justice Department appealed to the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, but the ruling stands for now in the district.

Even after Currie's decision, Justice Department lawyers kept listing Halligan as U.S. attorney on court filings. An internal email told prosecutors to use the title, backed by the department's Office of Legal Counsel. Attorney General Pam Bondi later issued an order calling Halligan a special U.S. attorney retroactive to September 22. But judges in the district have pushed back.

Key Details

U.S. District Judge David Novak, a Trump appointee from 2019, issued the order on his own on Tuesday. It targets a December 2025 indictment for carjacking and attempted bank robbery. Halligan's name appears there as "United States attorney and special attorney." Novak called Currie's ruling binding precedent that cannot be ignored.

"Ms. Halligan shall further explain why her identification does not constitute a false or misleading statement."
— U.S. District Judge David Novak

Novak wants a response signed by Halligan within seven days. He also asked why the court should not remove her name and title from the indictment.

This is not the first time judges have questioned Halligan. Last month, Judge Michael S. Nachmanoff said in a hearing on an illegal reentry case that he struggled to square her title with Currie's ruling. He let defense lawyers strike her name from papers, saying filings must follow court rules.

Earlier Court Pushback

In another case, Magistrate Judge William Fitzpatrick handled a drunk driving charge. He ruled plainly: "The law in this district right now is that she is not and has not been the United States Attorney." Her name got struck there too.

Halligan's backers in the Justice Department stand firm. Last month, Attorney General Bondi and her deputy Todd Blanche accused Virginia judges of bias against Halligan. They said she and her team follow department guidance and do not deserve reputation hits for their work.

Halligan filed a response this week defending her title use. She argued that her role as special attorney lets her keep the designation. The filing points to guidance from higher-ups and calls Novak's order overreach.

Her full nomination for the permanent U.S. attorney job sits before the Senate Judiciary Committee. But Virginia Senators Mark Warner and Tim Kaine, both Democrats, do not back it, making confirmation unlikely.

What This Means

The clash highlights tensions between the Justice Department under Trump allies and federal judges in Virginia. Novak's order tests how far the department will go to keep Halligan in play while the appeal runs. If she cannot satisfy Novak, more cases might see her name removed, slowing prosecutions.

Currie's ruling sets a precedent that could affect other interim appointees nationwide. It stresses limits on executive power to fill prosecutor roles without Senate input. The 4th Circuit appeal could change that, but for now, district courts enforce it.

Halligan's push ties into broader efforts to target figures like Comey and James. Those indictments fell, but the department shows no sign of stopping similar cases. Her status affects how indictments hold up, especially if challenges mount.

Judges' moves signal concern over court filings' accuracy. Virginia's Rules of Professional Conduct come into play, as Novak noted. False titles could lead to ethics reviews or sanctions down the line.

Prosecutors must now walk a line between department orders and local rulings. Internal emails show confusion, with typos even in title instructions. This could erode trust in filings and prompt defense lawyers to challenge more cases.

The Senate's role looms large. Without confirmation, Halligan's future stays interim at best. Trump's team eyes her as key to their agenda in a district central to national security cases.

Bondi's retroactive order aims to fix the appointment flaw, but judges see it as too late. The fight tests constitutional bounds on who wields federal prosecutorial power.

Halligan's lack of prosecutorial background adds fuel. Critics note her shift from defense lawyer to lead prosecutor raises questions on readiness for complex cases.

As the seven-day clock ticks, her response will shape next steps. It might spark wider debate on appointments in a divided government.