A federal judge’s inquiry into Lindsey Halligan’s self-representation as a “U.S. Attorney” has sparked a strong rebuke from the Trump administration, which has accused the judge of “gross abuse of power.” The controversy stems from U.S. District Judge David J. Novak’s demand for an explanation regarding Halligan’s continued use of the title in court documents.

The judge, appointed by President Donald Trump, issued an order on January 7 for the government to respond, specifically asking Halligan to provide her own explanation. This follows a ruling in November 2025 by another judge, which determined that Halligan’s appointment as the leading prosecutor in the Eastern District of Virginia was in violation of federal law and the U.S. Constitution.

In response, Halligan described the judge’s request as “a sua sponte inquisition,” reflecting her strong disapproval in the opening line of her official reply. Her motion argues that the order demonstrates a “fundamental misunderstanding” and disregards multiple Supreme Court precedents regarding the role of federal courts, district court rulings, and the adversarial nature of the legal system.

Previously, U.S. District Judge Cameron McGowan Currie, appointed by President Bill Clinton, ruled that Halligan was a “private citizen” who was never lawfully appointed as the interim U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia. This ruling had significant implications for the prosecutions of New York Attorney General Letitia James and former FBI Director James Comey, effectively nullifying the indictments against them due to Halligan’s involvement.

The impact of Halligan’s invalid appointment on nearly three dozen other cases remains uncertain. These cases, where Halligan was listed as “U.S. Attorney” on federal criminal and civil documents, cover a wide range of allegations, including fraud, conspiracy, theft, and traffic offenses.

What the invalid appointment meant for nearly three dozen cases in which Halligan’s name appeared as “U.S. Attorney” on federal criminal and civil charging documents remained unclear. The subject matter of those cases runs the gamut with allegations of fraud, conspiracy, theft, vehicle and traffic offenses.

Enter Judge Novak.

The long-serving federal judge — who worked as a magistrate, or assistant judge, for seven years before his promotion — noted that Halligan’s name appeared on the signature block in an ongoing criminal case and wanted to know the reasons why.

The government’s first answer is that dismissing the cases against James and Comey does “not prohibit, or render factually false” the Trump administration continuing to assert “that Ms. Halligan is the United States Attorney.”

In other words, the DOJ says Currie’s use of statutory appointment law and the appointments clause was merely cited for the sole purpose of dismissing those two cases and was “not an independent declaratory judgment.”

The filing explains this, at length [emphasis in original]:

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 [federal law], 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.

The DOJ’s response then addresses the judge head-on, taking Novak to task for applying the logic of Halligan’s disqualification to cases beyond the two cases in which she was originally disqualified.

“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,” the response reads.

According to the Trump administration, the kerfuffle with Halligan’s appointment is only comparable to the landmark opinion from the U.S. Supreme Court in the case styled Trump v. Casa. In that case, the conservative majority on the nation’s high court essentially ended the practice of nationwide or “universal” injunctions – at least those authored by district court judges.

“The controversy adjudicated by Judge Currie was a dispute over the validity of the indictments in two specific cases,” the response goes on. “The United States is not required to treat her reasoning as law in any other case.”

The DOJ also says Novak “made an even more rudimentary legal error” when describing Halligan’s disqualification as “binding precedent in this district.” Here, the government argues that “a decision of a federal district court judge is not binding precedent in either a different judicial district, the same judicial district, or even upon the same judge in a different case.”

Not quite done, the DOJ’s response also rubbishes Novak for his “fixation on a signature block title,” calling the judge’s inquiry “untethered from how federal courts actually operate.”

The government notes that onetime special counsel Jack Smith, after being similarly disqualified in the Mar-a-Lago documents case, continued to identify as “Special Counsel” in signature blocks “while appellate review proceeded” and without any court’s objection.

But the government’s reasoning was not the judge’s only concern as Halligan continues to assert her disputed role.

Novak also strongly suggested that Halligan continuing to hold herself out as a federal prosecutor might “constitute a false or misleading statement” and directed her to explain why such self-identification was not a “misrepresentation” under ethical rules for attorneys.

That part of the court’s order resulted in a particularly harsh response.

Again, the filing, at length:

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.

“The bottom line is that Ms. Halligan has not ‘misrepresented’ anything and the Court is flat wrong to suggest that any change to the Government’s signature block is warranted in this or any other case,” the filing states.

The government says references to ethical rules have no place here.

“It is the United States’ position that Ms. Halligan was properly appointed as interim United States Attorney—a position the United States has maintained in part based on internal legal advice from the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel,” the response said. “That Judge Currie dismissed two indictments based on her disagreement with that position does not prevent the United States from otherwise maintaining it. Furthermore, the Court’s invocation of professional ethics rules reflects a fundamental category error. Ethical rules regulate attorney conduct – not the Government’s adoption or maintenance of a contested legal position.”

As the response concludes, the DOJ again refers to Novak’s questions as an “inquisition” and gives the judge some stern advice: “For these reasons, the Court should deem this response sufficient, withdraw its January 6, 2026 order, and permit this prosecution to proceed without further collateral inquiry into matters beyond the Court’s authority.”

Halligan herself appears, unsurprisingly and as directed, on the signature block for the government’s harsh rebuke, alongside Attorney General Pam Bondi, Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche, Assistant U.S. Attorney Stephen E. Anthony, and Special Assistant U.S. Attorney Katherine E. Groover.