Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Disqualified Trump appointee Halligan accuses judge of 'gross abuse of power' for questioning her authority
A federal judge gave Halligan to show why she was still claiming to be a US attorney despite rulings that she was not eligible. The DOJ filed a brief today attacking the judge.
Link to tweet
https://www.democracydocket.com/news-alerts/lindsey-halligan-disqualified-trump-attorney-judge-power-abuse-authority/
Lindsey Halligan, the loyalist lawyer President Donald Trump handpicked to prosecute his enemies last year, has accused a federal judge of abusing his power by asking her to explain how she remains the top federal prosecutor in eastern Virginia after a court formally disqualified her more than a month ago.
Halligan’s response to the judge Tuesday — a remarkably defiant document that strains the boundaries of standard legal rhetoric and logic — represents the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) latest pugilistic attempt to keep her at the helm of the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Virginia, one of the largest and most prestigious federal prosecutor offices in the country.
In November, U.S. District Judge Cameron Currie determined that Trump and Attorney General Pam Bondi circumvented the Constitution and federal law in appointing Halligan to lead the office. She then dismissed the DOJ’s criminal indictments against former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James — two cases that Halligan alone brought just days after her appointment.
Then, last week, U.S. District Judge David Novak ordered Halligan to explain how her continued identification as the top federal prosecutor in eastern Virginia did not amount to making false or misleading statements to a court — and why he shouldn’t strike her identification as a U.S. attorney from a criminal indictment secured after her disqualification.
In response, Halligan characterized Novak’s questions as “a thinly veiled threat” against her authority and claimed the previous unlawful appointment ruling only prevented her from working the dismissed cases against Comey and James.
“This Court appears to be under the misimpression that because Judge Currie’s rationale for dismissing the indictments was her conclusion that Ms. Halligan was unlawfully appointed, the United States must acquiesce to that rationale in all other cases or else it is ‘ignor[ing]’ Judge Currie’s orders,” the response, which was authored by Halligan, states.
“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.”
Halligan’s response to the judge Tuesday — a remarkably defiant document that strains the boundaries of standard legal rhetoric and logic — represents the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) latest pugilistic attempt to keep her at the helm of the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Virginia, one of the largest and most prestigious federal prosecutor offices in the country.
In November, U.S. District Judge Cameron Currie determined that Trump and Attorney General Pam Bondi circumvented the Constitution and federal law in appointing Halligan to lead the office. She then dismissed the DOJ’s criminal indictments against former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James — two cases that Halligan alone brought just days after her appointment.
Then, last week, U.S. District Judge David Novak ordered Halligan to explain how her continued identification as the top federal prosecutor in eastern Virginia did not amount to making false or misleading statements to a court — and why he shouldn’t strike her identification as a U.S. attorney from a criminal indictment secured after her disqualification.
In response, Halligan characterized Novak’s questions as “a thinly veiled threat” against her authority and claimed the previous unlawful appointment ruling only prevented her from working the dismissed cases against Comey and James.
“This Court appears to be under the misimpression that because Judge Currie’s rationale for dismissing the indictments was her conclusion that Ms. Halligan was unlawfully appointed, the United States must acquiesce to that rationale in all other cases or else it is ‘ignor[ing]’ Judge Currie’s orders,” the response, which was authored by Halligan, states.
“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.”
8 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
= new reply since forum marked as read
Link to tweet
Contrary to this Court’s suggestion, nothing in the Comey and James dismissal orders
prohibits Ms. Halligan from performing the functions of or holding herself out as the United
States Attorney. Although Judge Currie concluded that Ms. Halligan was unlawfully appointed
under Section 546, she did not purport to enjoin Ms. Halligan from continuing to oversee the
office or from identifying herself as the United States Attorney in the Government’s signature
blocks. Indeed, Judge Currie did not issue any remedy beyond those two cases—she simply
dismissed the indictments without prejudice. Comey, ECF No. 213 at 28–29; James, ECF No.
140 at 25–26; see Dismissal, Black’s Law Dictionary (12th ed. 2024) (Dismissal is the
“[t]ermination of an action, claim, or charge.”). In fact, Judge Currie rejected the defendant’s
request in James to enjoin Ms. Halligan from performing any “functions or duties of an interim
U.S. Attorney,” James, ECF No. 22 at 16. See James, ECF No. 140 at 25......
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. That Judge Currie
dismissed two indictments based on her disagreement with that position does not prevent the
United States from otherwise maintaining it. Furthermore, the Court’s invocation of
professional ethics rules reflects a fundamental category error. Ethical rules regulate attorney
conduct – not the Government’s adoption or maintenance of a contested legal position.
Charging disagreement with a court’s interpretation of federal law, particularly where that
interpretation is on appeal, as professional misconduct would turn advocacy itself into a
sanctionable ethics violation. .....
To answer the Court’s inquisition directly: “the basis for Ms. Halligan’s identification
of herself as the United States Attorney, notwithstanding Judge Currie’s contrary ruling” is
that, in the Government’s view, Ms. Halligan is the United States Attorney, and Judge Currie’s
ruling did not and could not require the United States to acquiesce to her contrary (and
erroneous) legal reasoning outside of those cases. “[T]he reasons why this Court should not
strike Ms. Halligan’s identification of herself as United States Attorney from the indictment in
this matter” are that no authority exists for a court to strike an attorney title out of a signature
block, and certainly not on its own motion.
Finally, Ms. Halligan’s “identification does not constitute a false or misleading
statement.” It is correct and consistent with the Department of Justice’s internal guidance, and
at minimum reflects a contested legal position that the United States is entitled to maintain
notwithstanding a single district judge’s contrary view. For these reasons, the Court should
deem this response sufficient, withdraw its January 6, 2026 order, and permit this prosecution
to proceed without further collateral inquiry into matters beyond the Court’s authority.
prohibits Ms. Halligan from performing the functions of or holding herself out as the United
States Attorney. Although Judge Currie concluded that Ms. Halligan was unlawfully appointed
under Section 546, she did not purport to enjoin Ms. Halligan from continuing to oversee the
office or from identifying herself as the United States Attorney in the Government’s signature
blocks. Indeed, Judge Currie did not issue any remedy beyond those two cases—she simply
dismissed the indictments without prejudice. Comey, ECF No. 213 at 28–29; James, ECF No.
140 at 25–26; see Dismissal, Black’s Law Dictionary (12th ed. 2024) (Dismissal is the
“[t]ermination of an action, claim, or charge.”). In fact, Judge Currie rejected the defendant’s
request in James to enjoin Ms. Halligan from performing any “functions or duties of an interim
U.S. Attorney,” James, ECF No. 22 at 16. See James, ECF No. 140 at 25......
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. That Judge Currie
dismissed two indictments based on her disagreement with that position does not prevent the
United States from otherwise maintaining it. Furthermore, the Court’s invocation of
professional ethics rules reflects a fundamental category error. Ethical rules regulate attorney
conduct – not the Government’s adoption or maintenance of a contested legal position.
Charging disagreement with a court’s interpretation of federal law, particularly where that
interpretation is on appeal, as professional misconduct would turn advocacy itself into a
sanctionable ethics violation. .....
To answer the Court’s inquisition directly: “the basis for Ms. Halligan’s identification
of herself as the United States Attorney, notwithstanding Judge Currie’s contrary ruling” is
that, in the Government’s view, Ms. Halligan is the United States Attorney, and Judge Currie’s
ruling did not and could not require the United States to acquiesce to her contrary (and
erroneous) legal reasoning outside of those cases. “[T]he reasons why this Court should not
strike Ms. Halligan’s identification of herself as United States Attorney from the indictment in
this matter” are that no authority exists for a court to strike an attorney title out of a signature
block, and certainly not on its own motion.
Finally, Ms. Halligan’s “identification does not constitute a false or misleading
statement.” It is correct and consistent with the Department of Justice’s internal guidance, and
at minimum reflects a contested legal position that the United States is entitled to maintain
notwithstanding a single district judge’s contrary view. For these reasons, the Court should
deem this response sufficient, withdraw its January 6, 2026 order, and permit this prosecution
to proceed without further collateral inquiry into matters beyond the Court’s authority.
I have never seen a party in effect attack and insult a federal judge like this. I would NOT be surprised to see some sanctions.
