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
VA Fed court rules that Lindsey Halligan cannot hold herself out as "United States Attorney."
Chris Geidner
@chrisgeidner.bsky.social
BREAKING: Federal court in Virginia—noting DOJ's filing "falls far beneath the level of advocacy expected from litigants in this Court, particularly the Department of Justice"—rules that Lindsey Halligan cannot hold herself out as "United States Attorney," striking that language from case filings.
Ms. Halligan's response, in which she was joined by both the Attorney General and the Deputy Attorney General, contains a level of vitriol more appropriate for a cable news talk show and falls far beneath the level of advocacy expected from litigants in this Court, particularly the Department of Justice. The Court will not engage in a similar tit-for-tat and will instead analyze the few points that Ms. Halligan offers to justify her continued identification of her position as
United States Attorney before the Court. Ultimately, the Court concludes for the reasons that
follow that Ms. Halligan's continued identification of herself as the United States Attorney for this District ignores a binding court order and may not continue; otherwise, Ms. Halligan and anyone who joins her on a pleading containing the improper moniker subjects themselves to potential disciplinary action in this Court pursuant to the Court's Local Rules.
ALT
Ill. Conclusion
The Eastern District of Virginia has long enjoyed the service of experienced prosecutors
with unquestioned integrity from both political parties serving as the United States Attorney.
Despite coming from different political backgrounds and holding very different ideological
views, they all shared an unwavering commitment to the Rule of Law, putting the interests of the
citizens of the District before their own personal ambitions, as true public servants do.
Unfortunately, it appears that this ethos has come to an end. A district judge acting at the
direction of the Chief Judge of the Fourth Circuit has ruled on behalf of the district judges of this
District that Ms. Halligan was invalidly appointed as the United States Attorney. No matter all of her machinations, Ms. Halligan has no legal basis to represent to this Court that she holds the position. And any such representation going forward can only be described as a false statement made in direct defiance of valid court orders. In short, this charade of Ms. Halligan
masquerading as the United States Attorney for this District in direct defiance of binding court
orders must come to an end.
For all of these reasons, the Court hereby STRIKES the words "United States Attorney" from the signature block on the Indictment (ECF No. 1), as well as all other Government filings
in this case. (ECF Nos. 13, 18, 22.) The Court further BARS Ms. Halligan from representing
herself as the United States Attorney in any pleading or otherwise before this Court until such
time as she may lawfully hold the office either by Senate confirmation or appointment by this
Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 546(d), should either occur. That bar shall become effective at
12:01 a.m. on January 21, 2026, and shall apply to any filings submitted thereafter.
ALT
The Court recognizes that Ms. Halligan lacks the prosecutorial experience that has long
been the norm for those nominated to the position of United States Attorney in this District.
Consequently, and in light of her inexperience, the Court grants Ms. Halligan the benefit of the
doubt and refrains from referring her for further investigation and disciplinary action regarding
her misrepresentations to this Court at this time. However, this Memorandum Order provides
notice that, should Ms. Halligan persist in ignoring Judge Currie's Orders and this Memorandum
Order in any matter before the undersigned, the Court will initiate disciplinary proceedings
against Ms. Halligan and any other signatory to an offending pleading pursuant to Federal Rule
of Disciplinary Enforcement V(A).
Let the Clerk file a copy of this Order electronically and notify all counsel of record, the
Chief Judge and all United States District Judges, Magistrate Judges and Bankruptcy Judges of
this Court, Judge Currie, and all members of the Richmond Division of the United States
Attorney's Office for the Eastern District of Virginia with current CM/ECF registrations.
The Court further ORDERS that Ms. Halligan shall provide a copy of this Memorandum
Order to the Attorney General and Deputy Attorney General, since they appear as signatories on
her Response.
It is so ORDERED.
/s/
David J. Novak
United States District Judge
Richmond, Virginia
Dated: January 20. 2026
ALT
1:31 PM · Jan 20, 2026
@chrisgeidner.bsky.social
BREAKING: Federal court in Virginia—noting DOJ's filing "falls far beneath the level of advocacy expected from litigants in this Court, particularly the Department of Justice"—rules that Lindsey Halligan cannot hold herself out as "United States Attorney," striking that language from case filings.
Ms. Halligan's response, in which she was joined by both the Attorney General and the Deputy Attorney General, contains a level of vitriol more appropriate for a cable news talk show and falls far beneath the level of advocacy expected from litigants in this Court, particularly the Department of Justice. The Court will not engage in a similar tit-for-tat and will instead analyze the few points that Ms. Halligan offers to justify her continued identification of her position as
United States Attorney before the Court. Ultimately, the Court concludes for the reasons that
follow that Ms. Halligan's continued identification of herself as the United States Attorney for this District ignores a binding court order and may not continue; otherwise, Ms. Halligan and anyone who joins her on a pleading containing the improper moniker subjects themselves to potential disciplinary action in this Court pursuant to the Court's Local Rules.
ALT
Ill. Conclusion
The Eastern District of Virginia has long enjoyed the service of experienced prosecutors
with unquestioned integrity from both political parties serving as the United States Attorney.
Despite coming from different political backgrounds and holding very different ideological
views, they all shared an unwavering commitment to the Rule of Law, putting the interests of the
citizens of the District before their own personal ambitions, as true public servants do.
Unfortunately, it appears that this ethos has come to an end. A district judge acting at the
direction of the Chief Judge of the Fourth Circuit has ruled on behalf of the district judges of this
District that Ms. Halligan was invalidly appointed as the United States Attorney. No matter all of her machinations, Ms. Halligan has no legal basis to represent to this Court that she holds the position. And any such representation going forward can only be described as a false statement made in direct defiance of valid court orders. In short, this charade of Ms. Halligan
masquerading as the United States Attorney for this District in direct defiance of binding court
orders must come to an end.
For all of these reasons, the Court hereby STRIKES the words "United States Attorney" from the signature block on the Indictment (ECF No. 1), as well as all other Government filings
in this case. (ECF Nos. 13, 18, 22.) The Court further BARS Ms. Halligan from representing
herself as the United States Attorney in any pleading or otherwise before this Court until such
time as she may lawfully hold the office either by Senate confirmation or appointment by this
Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 546(d), should either occur. That bar shall become effective at
12:01 a.m. on January 21, 2026, and shall apply to any filings submitted thereafter.
ALT
The Court recognizes that Ms. Halligan lacks the prosecutorial experience that has long
been the norm for those nominated to the position of United States Attorney in this District.
Consequently, and in light of her inexperience, the Court grants Ms. Halligan the benefit of the
doubt and refrains from referring her for further investigation and disciplinary action regarding
her misrepresentations to this Court at this time. However, this Memorandum Order provides
notice that, should Ms. Halligan persist in ignoring Judge Currie's Orders and this Memorandum
Order in any matter before the undersigned, the Court will initiate disciplinary proceedings
against Ms. Halligan and any other signatory to an offending pleading pursuant to Federal Rule
of Disciplinary Enforcement V(A).
Let the Clerk file a copy of this Order electronically and notify all counsel of record, the
Chief Judge and all United States District Judges, Magistrate Judges and Bankruptcy Judges of
this Court, Judge Currie, and all members of the Richmond Division of the United States
Attorney's Office for the Eastern District of Virginia with current CM/ECF registrations.
The Court further ORDERS that Ms. Halligan shall provide a copy of this Memorandum
Order to the Attorney General and Deputy Attorney General, since they appear as signatories on
her Response.
It is so ORDERED.
/s/
David J. Novak
United States District Judge
Richmond, Virginia
Dated: January 20. 2026
ALT
1:31 PM · Jan 20, 2026
BREAKING: Federal court in Virginia—noting DOJ's filing "falls far beneath the level of advocacy expected from litigants in this Court, particularly the Department of Justice"—rules that Lindsey Halligan cannot hold herself out as "United States Attorney," striking that language from case filings.
— Chris Geidner (@chrisgeidner.bsky.social) 2026-01-20T18:31:12.661Z
Chris Geidner
@chrisgeidner.bsky.social
Opinion and order:
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.vaed.586311/gov.uscourts.vaed.586311.23.0.pdf
This is regarding the DOJ filing from last week that I harshly criticized as well:
@chrisgeidner.bsky.social
Opinion and order:
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.vaed.586311/gov.uscourts.vaed.586311.23.0.pdf
This is regarding the DOJ filing from last week that I harshly criticized as well:
Chris Geidner
@chrisgeidner.bsky.social
· 6d
DOJ has become an absolute joke. This response about why Lindsey Halligan continues putting herself out as U.S. Attorney is both over the top in presentation and embarrassingly bad as to argument.
UNITED STATES' RESPONSE TO THE COURT'S JANUARY 6, 2026 ORDER
In violation of the Rules of Criminal Procedure and the principle of party presentation, the Court has initiated a sua sponte inquisition into whether it should strike Ms. Halligan's title
from the Government's signature block. The order launching this quest reflects a fundamental
misunderstanding of Judge Currie's orders dismissing the indictments in United States v.
Comey, No. 1:25-cr-272 and United States v. James, 2:25-cr-122 and flouts no fewer than three separate lines of Supreme Court precedent on elementary principles like the role of federal courts, the effect of district court rulings, and the nature of our adversarial system.
Adding insult to error, the order posits that the United States' continued assertion of its legal position that Ms. Halligan properly serves as the United States Attorney amounts to a factual misrepresentation that could trigger attorney discipline. The Court's thinly veiled threat to use attorney discipline to cudgel the Executive Branch into conforming its legal position in all criminal prosecutions to the views of a single district judge is a gross abuse of power and
an affront to the separation of powers.
ALT
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.
To be sure, in the decretal section of the orders, Judge Currie stated that "[the appointment of Ms. Halligan as Interim U.S. Attorney violated 28 U.S.C. § 546 and the
Appointments Clause of the U.S. Constitution." Comey, ECF No. 213 at 28; James, ECF No.
ALT
140 at 25. But that is simply a statement of her basis for ordering dismissal of the indictment,
not an independent declaratory judgment. A declaratory judgment is a remedy that operates as
"a final judgment" entered at the conclusion of a case initiated by "an appropriate pleading," not an interlocutory order on a motion in a criminal case.' 28 U.S.C. § 2201(a); see United
States v. Carrington, 91 F.4th 252, 265 (4th Cir. 2024) (order dismissing an indictment without prejudice is not a final judgment). But even if Judge Currie had somehow issued a declaratory judgment - which she did not - such relief would still not bind the United States in other cases
or prevent Ms. Halligan from otherwise holding herself out as the United States Attorney. A
declaratory judgment does not "orderl] that anything be done" or "seek execution of performance." Cook v. Nu-Tech Housing Servs., 953 F.2d 1383, 1992 WL 17301, at *4 (4th Cir. 1992) (unpublished table decision). And in any event, declaratory relief is limited to resolving "the rights and other legal relations of any interested party." 28 U.S.C. § 2201(a).
ALT
January 13, 2026
Respectfully submitted,
Pamela Bondi
Attorney General
Todd W. Blanche
Deputy Attorney General
Ву:
/s/
Lindsey Halligan
United States Attorney and Special Attorney
United States Attorney's Office
Eastern District of Virginia
Stephen E. Anthony
Assistant United States Attorney
Katherine E. Groover
Special Assistant United States Attorney
ALT
1:33 PM · Jan 20, 2026
@chrisgeidner.bsky.social
· 6d
DOJ has become an absolute joke. This response about why Lindsey Halligan continues putting herself out as U.S. Attorney is both over the top in presentation and embarrassingly bad as to argument.
UNITED STATES' RESPONSE TO THE COURT'S JANUARY 6, 2026 ORDER
In violation of the Rules of Criminal Procedure and the principle of party presentation, the Court has initiated a sua sponte inquisition into whether it should strike Ms. Halligan's title
from the Government's signature block. The order launching this quest reflects a fundamental
misunderstanding of Judge Currie's orders dismissing the indictments in United States v.
Comey, No. 1:25-cr-272 and United States v. James, 2:25-cr-122 and flouts no fewer than three separate lines of Supreme Court precedent on elementary principles like the role of federal courts, the effect of district court rulings, and the nature of our adversarial system.
Adding insult to error, the order posits that the United States' continued assertion of its legal position that Ms. Halligan properly serves as the United States Attorney amounts to a factual misrepresentation that could trigger attorney discipline. The Court's thinly veiled threat to use attorney discipline to cudgel the Executive Branch into conforming its legal position in all criminal prosecutions to the views of a single district judge is a gross abuse of power and
an affront to the separation of powers.
ALT
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.
To be sure, in the decretal section of the orders, Judge Currie stated that "[the appointment of Ms. Halligan as Interim U.S. Attorney violated 28 U.S.C. § 546 and the
Appointments Clause of the U.S. Constitution." Comey, ECF No. 213 at 28; James, ECF No.
ALT
140 at 25. But that is simply a statement of her basis for ordering dismissal of the indictment,
not an independent declaratory judgment. A declaratory judgment is a remedy that operates as
"a final judgment" entered at the conclusion of a case initiated by "an appropriate pleading," not an interlocutory order on a motion in a criminal case.' 28 U.S.C. § 2201(a); see United
States v. Carrington, 91 F.4th 252, 265 (4th Cir. 2024) (order dismissing an indictment without prejudice is not a final judgment). But even if Judge Currie had somehow issued a declaratory judgment - which she did not - such relief would still not bind the United States in other cases
or prevent Ms. Halligan from otherwise holding herself out as the United States Attorney. A
declaratory judgment does not "orderl] that anything be done" or "seek execution of performance." Cook v. Nu-Tech Housing Servs., 953 F.2d 1383, 1992 WL 17301, at *4 (4th Cir. 1992) (unpublished table decision). And in any event, declaratory relief is limited to resolving "the rights and other legal relations of any interested party." 28 U.S.C. § 2201(a).
ALT
January 13, 2026
Respectfully submitted,
Pamela Bondi
Attorney General
Todd W. Blanche
Deputy Attorney General
Ву:
/s/
Lindsey Halligan
United States Attorney and Special Attorney
United States Attorney's Office
Eastern District of Virginia
Stephen E. Anthony
Assistant United States Attorney
Katherine E. Groover
Special Assistant United States Attorney
ALT
1:33 PM · Jan 20, 2026
Opinion and order: storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...
— Chris Geidner (@chrisgeidner.bsky.social) 2026-01-20T18:33:03.587Z
This is regarding the DOJ filing from last week that I harshly criticized as well:
Chris Geidner
@chrisgeidner.bsky.social
DOJ has become an absolute joke. This response about why Lindsey Halligan continues putting herself out as U.S. Attorney is both over the top in presentation and embarrassingly bad as to argument.
UNITED STATES' RESPONSE TO THE COURT'S JANUARY 6, 2026 ORDER
In violation of the Rules of Criminal Procedure and the principle of party presentation, the Court has initiated a sua sponte inquisition into whether it should strike Ms. Halligan's title
from the Government's signature block. The order launching this quest reflects a fundamental
misunderstanding of Judge Currie's orders dismissing the indictments in United States v.
Comey, No. 1:25-cr-272 and United States v. James, 2:25-cr-122 and flouts no fewer than three separate lines of Supreme Court precedent on elementary principles like the role of federal courts, the effect of district court rulings, and the nature of our adversarial system.
Adding insult to error, the order posits that the United States' continued assertion of its legal position that Ms. Halligan properly serves as the United States Attorney amounts to a factual misrepresentation that could trigger attorney discipline. The Court's thinly veiled threat to use attorney discipline to cudgel the Executive Branch into conforming its legal position in all criminal prosecutions to the views of a single district judge is a gross abuse of power and
an affront to the separation of powers.
ALT
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.
To be sure, in the decretal section of the orders, Judge Currie stated that "[the appointment of Ms. Halligan as Interim U.S. Attorney violated 28 U.S.C. § 546 and the
Appointments Clause of the U.S. Constitution." Comey, ECF No. 213 at 28; James, ECF No.
ALT
140 at 25. But that is simply a statement of her basis for ordering dismissal of the indictment,
not an independent declaratory judgment. A declaratory judgment is a remedy that operates as
"a final judgment" entered at the conclusion of a case initiated by "an appropriate pleading," not an interlocutory order on a motion in a criminal case.' 28 U.S.C. § 2201(a); see United
States v. Carrington, 91 F.4th 252, 265 (4th Cir. 2024) (order dismissing an indictment without prejudice is not a final judgment). But even if Judge Currie had somehow issued a declaratory judgment - which she did not - such relief would still not bind the United States in other cases
or prevent Ms. Halligan from otherwise holding herself out as the United States Attorney. A
declaratory judgment does not "orderl] that anything be done" or "seek execution of performance." Cook v. Nu-Tech Housing Servs., 953 F.2d 1383, 1992 WL 17301, at *4 (4th Cir. 1992) (unpublished table decision). And in any event, declaratory relief is limited to resolving "the rights and other legal relations of any interested party." 28 U.S.C. § 2201(a).
ALT
January 13, 2026
Respectfully submitted,
Pamela Bondi
Attorney General
Todd W. Blanche
Deputy Attorney General
Ву:
/s/
Lindsey Halligan
United States Attorney and Special Attorney
United States Attorney's Office
Eastern District of Virginia
Stephen E. Anthony
Assistant United States Attorney
Katherine E. Groover
Special Assistant United States Attorney
ALT
3:01 PM · Jan 13, 2026
@chrisgeidner.bsky.social
DOJ has become an absolute joke. This response about why Lindsey Halligan continues putting herself out as U.S. Attorney is both over the top in presentation and embarrassingly bad as to argument.
UNITED STATES' RESPONSE TO THE COURT'S JANUARY 6, 2026 ORDER
In violation of the Rules of Criminal Procedure and the principle of party presentation, the Court has initiated a sua sponte inquisition into whether it should strike Ms. Halligan's title
from the Government's signature block. The order launching this quest reflects a fundamental
misunderstanding of Judge Currie's orders dismissing the indictments in United States v.
Comey, No. 1:25-cr-272 and United States v. James, 2:25-cr-122 and flouts no fewer than three separate lines of Supreme Court precedent on elementary principles like the role of federal courts, the effect of district court rulings, and the nature of our adversarial system.
Adding insult to error, the order posits that the United States' continued assertion of its legal position that Ms. Halligan properly serves as the United States Attorney amounts to a factual misrepresentation that could trigger attorney discipline. The Court's thinly veiled threat to use attorney discipline to cudgel the Executive Branch into conforming its legal position in all criminal prosecutions to the views of a single district judge is a gross abuse of power and
an affront to the separation of powers.
ALT
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.
To be sure, in the decretal section of the orders, Judge Currie stated that "[the appointment of Ms. Halligan as Interim U.S. Attorney violated 28 U.S.C. § 546 and the
Appointments Clause of the U.S. Constitution." Comey, ECF No. 213 at 28; James, ECF No.
ALT
140 at 25. But that is simply a statement of her basis for ordering dismissal of the indictment,
not an independent declaratory judgment. A declaratory judgment is a remedy that operates as
"a final judgment" entered at the conclusion of a case initiated by "an appropriate pleading," not an interlocutory order on a motion in a criminal case.' 28 U.S.C. § 2201(a); see United
States v. Carrington, 91 F.4th 252, 265 (4th Cir. 2024) (order dismissing an indictment without prejudice is not a final judgment). But even if Judge Currie had somehow issued a declaratory judgment - which she did not - such relief would still not bind the United States in other cases
or prevent Ms. Halligan from otherwise holding herself out as the United States Attorney. A
declaratory judgment does not "orderl] that anything be done" or "seek execution of performance." Cook v. Nu-Tech Housing Servs., 953 F.2d 1383, 1992 WL 17301, at *4 (4th Cir. 1992) (unpublished table decision). And in any event, declaratory relief is limited to resolving "the rights and other legal relations of any interested party." 28 U.S.C. § 2201(a).
ALT
January 13, 2026
Respectfully submitted,
Pamela Bondi
Attorney General
Todd W. Blanche
Deputy Attorney General
Ву:
/s/
Lindsey Halligan
United States Attorney and Special Attorney
United States Attorney's Office
Eastern District of Virginia
Stephen E. Anthony
Assistant United States Attorney
Katherine E. Groover
Special Assistant United States Attorney
ALT
3:01 PM · Jan 13, 2026
DOJ has become an absolute joke. This response about why Lindsey Halligan continues putting herself out as U.S. Attorney is both over the top in presentation and embarrassingly bad as to argument.
— Chris Geidner (@chrisgeidner.bsky.social) 2026-01-13T20:01:44.252Z
5 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
= new reply since forum marked as read
