Federal Judge Bars Trump-Appointed Prosecutor, Sparks DOJ–Judiciary Showdown
A growing constitutional clash between the Department of Justice and the federal judiciary erupted this week after a federal judge sharply rebuked the Trump administration over the continued appearance of a disqualified prosecutor in court filings, raising alarms about the legality of dozens of federal cases.
During a tense courtroom exchange, U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema openly criticized the Department of Justice for continuing to list Lindsey Halligan as the United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, despite her removal and prior disqualification by another federal judge.
“Why is she still calling herself the United States Attorney when she was fired?” Judge Brinkema demanded, according to court observers. “She’s done. She’s gone. She’s no longer the U.S. Attorney. Get her off the pleadings.”
A Prosecutor Deemed a ‘Legal Nullity’
Halligan, a Trump-appointed interim U.S. attorney, was previously disqualified by Judge Tanya Chutkan Curry in a high-profile case involving former FBI Director James Comey. The ruling found that Halligan lacked lawful authority to act in the role, rendering her participation invalid.
Despite that ruling, her name has continued to appear on court filings across the Eastern District of Virginia, prompting judges to warn that her involvement could taint ongoing prosecutions and open the door to appeals, dismissals, and overturned convictions.
Assistant U.S. attorneys told the court they were acting under instructions from DOJ leadership and the Office of Legal Counsel, claiming they had no discretion to remove Halligan’s name. That explanation appeared to further inflame judicial frustration.
Judges Warn of Systemic Damage
Judge Brinkema questioned whether maintaining a “pretend” U.S. attorney—one deemed unlawful to hold office—could compromise every case originating from the district.
“Don’t you think this threatens the integrity of all your prosecutions?” the judge asked, warning that defendants could argue indictments were invalid because they were authorized by someone without legal authority.
Legal analysts say the concern is well-founded. Under federal law, interim U.S. attorneys may serve only 120 days, after which they must either be confirmed by the Senate or replaced by a court-appointed successor. Judges in Virginia declined to extend Halligan’s term, effectively ending her authority.
DOJ Strikes Back, Accuses Judges of Bias
In an unusually aggressive response, Attorney General Pam Bondi and Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche released a statement accusing federal judges in the Eastern District of Virginia of “bias and hostility” and engaging in what they called “undemocratic judicial activism.”
The statement argued that Halligan and her prosecutors were merely following DOJ guidance and claimed judges were improperly questioning their ethics and professionalism.
Legal experts, however, say the DOJ’s position misreads the Constitution. The appointment of U.S. attorneys, including interim procedures, is governed by both constitutional text and statute—authority that rests with Congress and the courts, not unilateral executive action.
A Pattern Across Multiple States
The controversy mirrors a similar episode in New Jersey, where another Trump-aligned interim U.S. attorney, Alina Habba, was removed after exceeding the statutory 120-day limit. The Third Circuit Court of Appeals ruled her appointment invalid, calling her role a “legal nullity.”
Judges now fear the same legal fallout in Virginia—particularly in serious criminal cases involving national security, fraud, drug trafficking, and public corruption.
Former federal prosecutors warn that continuing to defy court rulings could jeopardize public safety by undermining otherwise legitimate prosecutions.
A Crisis of Institutional Trust
Legal scholars say the standoff reflects a deeper institutional crisis, with courts increasingly forced to act as the final barrier against executive overreach.
“This isn’t about politics,” said former U.S. Attorney Harry Litman. “It’s about whether the rule of law still governs who has the authority to prosecute crimes in the name of the United States.”
Judges have emphasized that the administration could resolve the issue simply by nominating Halligan formally and seeking Senate confirmation—an option widely viewed as politically and practically unviable given her lack of prosecutorial experience.
Until then, courts appear prepared to continue rejecting filings bearing her name, escalating a confrontation that threatens to destabilize one of the nation’s most powerful federal prosecutor’s offices.
