Key Takeaways:
- Federal judges in Alexandria, Virginia, are disputing the Justice Department’s decision to list Lindsey Halligan as the US Attorney on court documents.
- Two magistrate judges and a district court judge have expressed their disagreement with the Justice Department’s stance, with one judge stating that filing criminal charging papers under Halligan’s name is "simply not acceptable."
- The controversy stems from a recent ruling that determined Halligan was not the US Attorney due to her lack of Senate confirmation and swearing-in by the court.
- The Justice Department has not provided a clear explanation for why it believes Halligan can remain in the job, leaving prosecutors in the dark and causing confusion in the court.
Introduction to the Controversy
The Justice Department is facing criticism from federal judges in Alexandria, Virginia, over its decision to continue listing Lindsey Halligan as the US Attorney on court documents. Despite a recent ruling that determined Halligan was not the US Attorney, the Justice Department has not provided a clear explanation for why it believes she can remain in the job. This has led to confusion and disagreement among judges, with some going as far as to strike Halligan’s name from court documents.
The Ruling and Its Implications
The controversy stems from a ruling by Judge Cameron McGowan Currie, which determined that Halligan was not the US Attorney due to her lack of Senate confirmation and swearing-in by the court. The ruling also dismissed the criminal cases against former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James, finding Halligan’s work on them "void." This decision has significant implications for the Justice Department, as it raises questions about the legitimacy of Halligan’s actions as US Attorney.
Judicial Disagreement
Two magistrate judges and a district court judge have expressed their disagreement with the Justice Department’s stance, with one judge stating that filing criminal charging papers under Halligan’s name is "simply not acceptable." Magistrate William Fitzpatrick told prosecutors in open court that the Justice Department’s actions were "not acceptable" and that Halligan’s name should not be on new criminal case filings. Another judge, Michael Nachmanoff, also expressed his disagreement, stating that the ruling was clear and that Halligan was not the US Attorney.
Confusion and Lack of Guidance
The Justice Department’s reasoning for keeping Halligan’s name on criminal filings has been thin, leaving prosecutors in the dark. Long-time prosecutor Tony Roberts told one judge that guidance from the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel said to keep Halligan’s name as is, but acknowledged that it was "peculiar" and something he had never seen in his 35 years of experience. Prosecutors in the office have felt left in the dark, and alarmed by the judges’ escalation of questions this week, sources familiar with the office tell CNN.
Fallout from the Dismissals
The disarray over the Justice Department signatures on criminal court filings is part of the fallout from the dismissal of the criminal cases against Comey and James. Halligan secured the indictments alone in an afternoon session with a grand jury for each, just a few days after President Donald Trump called for the prosecution of the political foes and Attorney General Pam Bondi placed Halligan at the US Attorney’s Office. Since the dismissals, Justice Department leadership has publicly continued to back Halligan, but it is unclear what the next steps will be.
Next Steps
Halligan’s US Attorney’s Office is expected to attempt imminently to seek a renewed grand jury indictment of Comey, for alleged false statements to Congress. A grand jury in the district declined to charge James a second time on Thursday, but the Justice Department may try again. However, Halligan is not expected to spearhead those grand jury presentations as she did the first time around for each, leaving other lower-level prosecutors to handle the cases in court. The US Attorney’s Office has also tried to advise its dozens of prosecutors in at least five different internal guidance emails since last week how to sign their court filings, following the ruling on Halligan.
Conclusion
The controversy surrounding Lindsey Halligan’s status as US Attorney continues to cause confusion and disagreement among judges and prosecutors. The Justice Department’s lack of clear explanation for why it believes Halligan can remain in the job has led to a lack of guidance for prosecutors, leaving them to navigate the complex and uncertain situation. As the situation continues to unfold, it remains to be seen what the next steps will be and how the Justice Department will address the concerns of the judges and prosecutors involved.
