A federal court in Virginia has moved to replace Lindsey Halligan, ruling that she was unlawfully serving as U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia. The decision, handed down by Chief Judge M. Hannah Lauck, underscores the significant issues surrounding Halligan’s appointment, drawing attention to the legal frameworks that govern such positions.
According to Judge Lauck’s order, the court has formally posted a vacancy announcement for the role Halligan once filled. This is a critical step, as it ensures that the prosecutorial responsibilities of the Eastern District are maintained without interruption. The judges made it clear that Halligan’s prior appointment violated 28 U.S.C. § 546 and the Appointments Clause of the U.S. Constitution, stating, “the appointment of Ms. Halligan as Interim U.S. Attorney violated … the Appointments Clause.” This ruling signals a serious legal misstep in her previous installation.
Judge Cameron McGowan Currie, another key figure in this saga, previously dismissed criminal cases against James Comey and Letitia James while also invalidating Halligan’s appointment. Currie cited that “all actions flowing from Ms. Halligan’s defective appointment” – including the indictment of Comey – were unlawful. The implications of these statements highlight a considerable lapse in legal oversight.
Pam Bondi responded to the turmoil by retroactively appointing Halligan as a “special attorney,” allowing her to exercise legal authority. However, this move has also come under scrutiny. Despite the new title, the court has been firm in its stance that Halligan cannot serve as Interim U.S. Attorney.
The judges’ threat of sanctions against any Department of Justice lawyer who refers to Halligan as U.S. Attorney reflects the seriousness of the court’s position. It is unusual, indicating the judges’ commitment to upholding the law as it pertains to proper appointments within the federal judicial system.
The job opening, now posted for Halligan’s former position, has drawn attention both for its significance and its implications for the next appointee. The Chief Judge’s order makes clear the path forward, inviting applications from interested attorneys with the deadline set for February 10, 2026. This structured approach ensures that the district’s legal affairs will be managed appropriately moving forward, eliminating any potential confusion or disruption that may arise from Halligan’s former appointment.
With this transition, the Eastern District of Virginia is poised to seek a new leader who will hopefully comply with statutory requirements and restore integrity to the position. This situation has placed a spotlight on the constitutional mandates surrounding federal appointments and the importance of adhering to proper legal protocols to maintain the rule of law.
"*" indicates required fields
