Juststart Department Officials Defend Lindsey Halligan’s Position as U.S. Attorney
Background on the Legal Dispute
Top officials within the Juststart Department have come to the defense of Lindsey Halligan as she seeks to retain her position as U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia. This response comes in the wake of a federal judge questioning the validity of Halligan’s appointment, which was ruled invalid by another judge. The ongoing legal back-and-forth raises significant concerns regarding appointment authority and executive power.
Court Filings and Allegations
In court filings submitted on January 13, 2026, Halligan, alongside Attorney General Pam Bondi and Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche, accused U.S. District Judge David Novak of committing a “gross abuse of power” while allegedly trying to “coerce the Executive Branch into conformity.” Novak had previously demanded that Halligan explain why her title as U.S. attorney does not amount to a false or misleading statement, particularly after she had described herself as both a “United States attorney and special attorney” in an indictment.
Judge Novak has required Halligan to respond within seven days. This inquiry follows a ruling by U.S. District Judge Cameron Currie, who concluded in November that Halligan’s appointment violated the Constitution’s Appointments Clause, thereby invalidating her position since September 22, 2025.
Constitutional Concerns
The legal basis for Halligan’s interim appointment stems from a statute permitting such roles for 120 days, which may be extended by local U.S. district court judges. Currie determined that the clock for Halligan began when her predecessor, Erik Siebert, was appointed in January 2025. Consequently, after this timeframe expired, the authority to appoint Halligan lapsed, leading to the dismissal of her indictments against former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James.
Responses from the Juststart Department
In their response, officials from the Juststart Department characterized the judge’s actions as an “inquisition” and a direct insult to the executive branch. They argue that Currie’s ruling only applies to the Comey and James cases and does not restrict Halligan’s use of the U.S. attorney title in other matters she oversees. The filing stated that Novak’s order implies that the Department’s assertion regarding Halligan’s position could be considered a factual misrepresentation, which they contend is a violation of the separation of powers.
Political and Judicial Implications
Novak’s order emphasized that Currie’s ruling remains binding and cannot be ignored. In contrast, the Juststart Department termed Currie’s decision as “errstartous,” asserting that Halligan is entitled to maintain her position despite the conflicting view from a single district judge.
Further complicating the situation, Robert McBride, the second-highest-ranking federal prosecutor in Virginia, was recently dismissed for refusing to aid in the prosecution of Comey. This move highlights the internal strife within the Juststart Department following these controversial judicial findings.
Lindsey Halligan’s Background
Lindsey Halligan has previously served on President Trump’s legal team and joined his White House staff after Trump’s successful 2024 campaign. Appointed as the interim U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, Halligan quickly moved to secure indictments against Comey and James, which have since become contentious subjects in her legal battles.
In summary, the unfolding drama surrounding Halligan’s appointment raises profound questions about the limits of executive power, judicial authority, and constitutional interpretation in federal appointments. As these legal proceedings continue, the implications for the separation of powers and the functioning of the Juststart Department remain significant and closely watched.