Judge Questions Halligan’s Use of ‘US Attorney’ Title

A federal judge has demanded an explanation from attorney Lindsey Halligan regarding her ⁢continued use of the title ​”U.S. attorney,” following a November ruling that deemed her appointment to the position unlawful. This situation raises​ critical questions about accountability adn the proper procedures for federal appointments, impacting public trust in the justice system.

U.S. District Judge David Novak issued a three-page order on⁣ Tuesday, January 7, 2026, requiring Halligan​ to provide a written ⁣justification within seven days. Remarkably, this order originated not from opposing counsel, but directly from the judge’s own initiative, signaling the seriousness of the matter.

“This matter comes before the Court‌ on its own initiative,” Judge Novak stated, emphasizing that the previous court order invalidating her service is not subject to being ignored. He directed Halligan to submit a formal pleading outlining the basis for her continued self-identification as a U.S. attorney.

Furthermore, Novak requested that Halligan explain why the court shouldn’t remove her claim to the title from the current indictment and address whether her continued⁤ use of the title constitutes a false or misleading ⁢statement. This directive underscores the judge’s concern about maintaining the‌ integrity of legal proceedings.

The Halligan Controversy: A Timeline of Events

Halligan was selected by ⁢former President Donald Trump to lead the prosecution of high-profile figures, including former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James. However, her legal strategies quickly encountered setbacks.⁣ In the case against Comey,it ‍was⁣ revealed that the indictment proceeded without the necessary approval​ from a grand jury – a fundamental requirement in criminal proceedings. ⁣

Later, the indictments ⁣against ​both James and Comey were dismissed by U.S. District Court judge‍ Cameron Currie, who resolute that Halligan’s ‍appointment was unconstitutional. This ruling‌ stemmed from concerns about the validity of the appointment process, highlighting the importance of adhering to established legal protocols.

As of today, January 7, 2026, the Department of Justice has yet to issue a public response to Judge Novak’s order. this silence adds​ another layer of complexity to the situation, leaving many to speculate⁤ about the department