When a federal judge orders the government to explain why it persists in calling someone the United States Attorney after another judge already established that the appointment was illegal, there are really only two ways that can go. Either the Department of Justice sheepishly admits that it’s committing a fraud upon the court with its signature blocks, or files an 11-page motion that says, “Rule of law? Never heard of her.”
You’ll be shocked to learn which door Pam Bondi’s office chose.
Judge David Novak’s January 6 order, gave the government a week to explain why Lindsey Halligan keeps showing up as the U.S. Attorney on filings despite absolutely not being the U.S. Attorney — real, acting, or interim. When we last covered this, we wrote:
And she now has a week to come up with an explanation that somehow reconciles “Judge Currie ruled I am not the U.S. Attorney” with “I keep calling myself the U.S. Attorney anyway.” That’s… quite the needle to thread.
But thread it they nonetheless tried. In today’s filing — flagged by Chris Geidner — the Justice Department responded with 11 pages of “How dare you, sir!” Backing up its indignation, the DOJ offers… well, not much. The filing is remarkable not because it’s unpersuasive — though it is certainly not — but because it manages to be wrong in so many different ways while insisting, loudly, that everyone else is misunderstanding how courts work.
As you recall, when Judge Cameron McGowan Currie tossed purported indictments against former FBI Director James Comey and current NY Attorney General Letitia James, she noted that Lindsey Halligan was illegally pretending to be the interim U.S. Attorney. The insurance lawyer with zero prosecutorial experience landed in the role after Donald Trump posted a DM intended for Pam Bondi complaining that she hadn’t done enough to baselessly prosecute his enemies. Soon after, the DOJ fired the existing interim U.S. Attorney, Erik Siebert, purporting to replace him with Halligan. But since the statutory 120-day limit on interim appointments already lapsed, the DOJ couldn’t legally appoint another interim candidate to the job.
Confronted with this straightforward set of facts and law, the DOJ responds, “nuh uh.”
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.
Sure, the judge ruled that the prosecutor possessed no legal authority, but why would we expect that to carry over to other cases? Under the DOJ’s garbled logic, the only remedy for illegal prosecutorial action is for each and every defendant to fight it out in their own cases.
This is like arguing that because a court vacated your speeding ticket, you’re entitled to keep telling every cop you’re legally allowed to go 90.
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.
This is a reading comprehension fail. Judge Currie acknowledged that there could be tasks involved in running the office that are not constitutional violations, but that tasks like, you know, signing filings as the U.S. Attorney, are definitely illegal.
This Court appears to be under the misimpression that because Judge Currie’s rationale for dismissing the indictments was her conclusion that Ms. Halligan was unlawfully appointed, the United States must acquiesce to that rationale in all other cases or else it is “ignor[ing]” Judge Currie’s orders. Just seven months ago, the Supreme Court characterized that “vision of the judicial function” as “extreme” and “at odds with more than two centuries’ worth of precedent, not to mention the Constitution itself.”
This is sovereign citizen levels of pulling case cites to make a string of non-sequiturs.The Supreme Court’s recent efforts to blow up nationwide injunctions has nothing to do with this case. District court opinions aren’t automatically binding upon the rest of the district, but in this instance, Judge Currie was designated to fully resolve the issue of Halligan’s appointment for the benefit of the whole district. Judge Currie’s ruling even concluded that the district judges are the only ones with the power to appoint an interim U.S. Attorney at this point absent a presidential nomination.
The government can disagree all it wants — and is more than free to appeal — but absent a contrary ruling, continuing to identify Halligan in the Eastern District as the U.S. Attorney is just trolling. Dangerous trolling because it compromises serious criminal prosecutions for what amounts to a bit. And any attorney signing onto the government’s contemptuous position deserves an ethical referral.
When the government has already been told it’s acting illegally and didn’t stop, it’s pretty clear how they feel about ethics.
(Check out filing on the next page…)
Earlier: Judge Demands Fake U.S. Attorney Explain Why She’s Still Pretending To Be U.S. Attorney
Lindsey Halligan Resolves To Embarrass Herself At SCOTUS In 2026
Lindsey Halligan Manages To Lose Two Cases At Once, Which Is Honestly Impressive
Joe Patrice is a senior editor at Above the Law and co-host of Thinking Like A Lawyer. Feel free to email any tips, questions, or comments. Follow him on Twitter or Bluesky if you’re interested in law, politics, and a healthy dose of college sports news. Joe also serves as a Managing Director at RPN Executive Search.
The post Lindsey Halligan Says Her ‘I’m An Illegal Appointment’ T-Shirt Has People Asking A Lot Of Questions Already Answered By Her Shirt appeared first on Above the Law.