On January 6, 2026, a legal drama that has been quietly brewing in the corridors of federal power erupted into public view, as U.S. District Judge David Novak issued a pointed order to Lindsey Halligan, the embattled acting U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia. Novak’s order, spanning three pages and delivered with unmistakable urgency, demands that Halligan explain within seven days why she continues to identify herself as the district’s chief federal prosecutor—despite a prior judicial ruling that deemed her appointment unlawful. The episode, while technical in its legal details, has far-reaching implications for the Department of Justice, the White House, and the broader debate over executive power and the rule of law.
According to The Independent, the controversy centers on Halligan’s continued use of the U.S. Attorney title after District Judge Cameron McGowan Currie ruled in November 2025 that Halligan’s appointment violated the Constitution. Currie found that Halligan, a former White House aide and Florida home-insurance litigator with little prosecutorial background, had served beyond the 120-day limit allowed for interim appointments without Senate confirmation or approval from the district’s judges. This breach, Currie concluded, rendered all actions taken by Halligan—most notably, the indictments of former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James—unlawful exercises of executive power.
Judge Novak, himself a Trump appointee, was unequivocal in his order. He directed Halligan to provide “the basis for... [the] identification of herself as the United States Attorney, notwithstanding Judge Currie’s contrary ruling.” He further demanded that Halligan “set forth the reasons why this court should not strike Ms Halligan’s identification of herself as United States Attorney from the indictment in this matter,” and explain why her actions “do not constitute a false or misleading statement.” Novak’s order, as reported by MS NOW, was issued sua sponte—meaning on his own initiative, rather than at the request of defense attorneys—underscoring the seriousness with which he views the matter.
The legal wrangling has its roots in a series of high-profile prosecutions initiated by Halligan shortly after her appointment in September 2025. Trump, dissatisfied with the reluctance of Halligan’s predecessor, Erik Siebert, to pursue charges against Comey and James, replaced him with Halligan. Within days, Halligan secured a two-count indictment against Comey for making false statements and obstructing a congressional proceeding. Not long after, she indicted James on charges of bank fraud and making false statements related to a 2020 Virginia house loan. Both Comey and James pleaded not guilty, but their cases were promptly dismissed following Currie’s ruling on the illegality of Halligan’s appointment.
Halligan’s controversial tenure has not gone unnoticed by her colleagues on the bench. As NBC News highlighted, other judges in the district have expressed their frustration, with one even marking Halligan’s name with an asterisk in court documents—a subtle but pointed reference to Currie’s disqualification ruling. The Justice Department, for its part, has continued to refer to Halligan as U.S. Attorney in official filings, and is actively appealing Currie’s decision. Yet, as Novak emphasized in his order, Currie’s ruling remains “binding precedent in this district and is not subject to being ignored,” since it has not been stayed pending appeal.
The White House, meanwhile, has signaled its intent to stand by Halligan. In a December statement to The Independent, press secretary Karoline Leavitt remarked, “She’s the president’s nominee. It is our hope that she is confirmed and submitting her questionnaire is part of that process.” The administration is currently advancing Halligan’s nomination through the Senate Judiciary Committee, aiming for a full Senate vote that could, in theory, resolve the legal limbo surrounding her status. But until such confirmation arrives—if it does—the district remains mired in uncertainty.
Judge Novak’s order is notable not only for its substance but also for its tone. He invoked an attorney’s ethical obligation to avoid making untruthful or misleading statements, warning that Halligan’s continued use of the U.S. Attorney title could constitute misconduct and grounds for disciplinary action. “She shall further explain why her identification does not constitute a false or misleading statement,” Novak wrote, demanding that Halligan personally sign her response. The gravity of this demand is hard to overstate: in the legal profession, accusations of dishonesty or misrepresentation can have career-ending consequences.
The case has also drawn attention to broader concerns about the Trump administration’s approach to federal appointments. Currie’s November ruling specifically criticized the Justice Department’s practice of installing two successive interim U.S. attorneys without Senate confirmation—a move she deemed unconstitutional. This pattern, as The New York Times noted, has not been limited to Virginia; a recent federal appeals court similarly rebuked efforts to keep a Trump loyalist in place as U.S. Attorney in New Jersey, finding those maneuvers to be a violation of federal law.
For Halligan, the stakes are personal as well as professional. Once a Miss Colorado contestant and relative newcomer to the world of federal prosecution, she was thrust into the national spotlight by Trump’s decision to appoint her to one of the most sensitive legal posts in the country. Her rapid-fire indictments of two of Trump’s most prominent adversaries—both of whom saw their cases dismissed—have only heightened scrutiny of her qualifications and the legitimacy of her appointment.
Legal experts say the dispute raises fundamental questions about the separation of powers and the integrity of the justice system. If a prosecutor’s authority is in doubt, what becomes of the cases she brings? What about the rights of defendants indicted under a cloud of illegality? And how should the courts respond when the executive branch appears to disregard judicial orders? These are not abstract concerns, but real-world dilemmas now playing out in one of the nation’s most important federal districts.
As of this week, the Department of Justice has not responded publicly to Judge Novak’s order, nor has Halligan herself commented. But with the clock ticking on the judge’s seven-day deadline, the legal and political worlds are watching closely. The outcome could shape not only the fate of Lindsey Halligan, but also the balance of power between the executive branch, the courts, and the Senate in the appointment of federal prosecutors.
For now, the Eastern District of Virginia remains in a state of legal suspense, awaiting Halligan’s response and the next move in a constitutional chess match with consequences far beyond any single case or career.
