A federal judge on Tuesday ordered Lindsey Halligan, the interim prosecutor for the Eastern District of Virginia, to justify why she continues to use the title “U.S. Attorney” after another court ruled her appointment unlawful.
In a terse order, U.S. District Judge David J. Novak — himself a Trump appointee — gave Halligan seven days to file a legal pleading explaining why the court should not remove her official title from federal indictments and whether her continued use of the designation could be false or misleading under professional ethics rules.
The development stems from a November 2025 ruling by a different federal judge, who concluded that Halligan’s appointment as interim U.S. attorney was invalid because it violated federal appointment statutes. That decision led to the dismissal of high-profile criminal charges against former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James on the grounds that Halligan lacked authority to bring those cases.
Despite that setback, the Department of Justice (DOJ) has instructed prosecutors in the Eastern District of Virginia to continue referring to Halligan as “U.S. Attorney” in filings, relying on legal advice from the DOJ’s Office of Legal Counsel. The instruction has drawn sharp criticism from some federal judges hearing cases from the Alexandria, Va.-based office.
In response to those criticisms, Attorney General Pam Bondi and Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche issued a joint statement on social media condemning what they described as an “unconscionable campaign of bias and hostility” by judges questioning Halligan’s title and authority.
Judge Novak’s order, which arises in at least two ongoing criminal cases, sets up a potential legal clash between the judiciary and the Justice Department. If Halligan fails to persuade the court that her title is legally and ethically sound, judges could order that the “U.S. Attorney” designation be removed from pending indictments — a move with serious procedural and reputational implications.
The controversy highlights deep tensions over political influence in federal prosecutorial appointments and may invite further challenges as related appeals and litigation proceed.