A legal decision that tossed out the criminal cases against former FBI director James Comey and New York attorney general Letitia James has pushed the Eastern District of Virginia into an unusual leadership crisis. Judges there are openly frustrated that Lindsey Halligan — the Trump-aligned U.S. attorney whose appointment was ruled unlawful — remains in the job despite the finding that she was never validly installed.
Last week, Judge Cameron McGowan Currie, brought in from South Carolina to evaluate the matter, concluded that the administration had unlawfully appointed Halligan as U.S. attorney. Her ruling ordered the dismissal of the Comey and James indictments. But it did not explicitly instruct the Justice Department to remove Halligan. DOJ has seized on that omission, keeping her in place even as the court declared her unqualified to serve.
The move has irritated judges across Virginia. On Thursday, a federal judge struck Halligan’s name from a court filing and challenged the administration’s position that she could continue overseeing cases. Days earlier, a magistrate judge questioned the same issue in another proceeding.
The conflict exposes a broader dispute between the Trump administration and the judiciary over U.S. attorney appointments. DOJ has repeatedly bypassed Senate confirmation norms, using procedural maneuvers to keep preferred loyalists in key posts from Nevada to New Jersey — often over judges’ objections.
At a hearing in Alexandria on Thursday involving a defendant accused of illegal re-entry, prosecutors struggled to justify Halligan’s ongoing role. Judge Michael Nachmanoff, who had presided over the now-dismissed Comey case, said he found it “difficult to reconcile” Halligan’s continued authority with Judge Currie’s ruling, which said she was “disqualified… as interim U.S. attorney or the U.S. attorney at all.”
The administration has not yet appealed Currie’s decision, nor sought to pause its effects. That omission further undermined prosecutors’ argument. “That decision is binding on the court,” Nachmanoff said, adding that Currie’s assignment empowered her to rule on the question “for all matters” in the district — not solely the Comey and James cases.
Pressed for an explanation, senior prosecutor Nicholas Patterson told the court that DOJ leaders instructed staff to continue using Halligan’s signature and title. He acknowledged that no reasoning had been shared with the assistant U.S. attorneys carrying out those instructions. Judges removed her title from filings themselves.
Inside DOJ, officials have consulted the Office of Legal Counsel, which advised that because the ruling did not explicitly direct Halligan’s removal, she could legally remain in the job. That interpretation has only increased irritation on the bench.
Judge Currie’s decision explicitly suggested that Virginia’s federal judges could use their authority under federal law to appoint an interim U.S. attorney. So far, they have not done so, but Thursday’s hearing signaled that they may be inching closer. A new question now looms: if the judges appoint a replacement, will the administration try to fire that person in order to reinstall Halligan or another Trump loyalist?
Meanwhile, a separate federal appeals court decision this week delivered another blow to DOJ’s legal theory. The court ruled that similar appointment maneuvers used to keep a Trump ally in place as U.S. attorney in New Jersey were unlawful.
The result is a deepening uncertainty — not only about who is running one of the nation’s most consequential federal prosecutor’s offices, but also about how far the administration is willing to go to keep political appointees in power despite judicial rulings to the contrary.
