In a significant legal showdown, federal judges in Alexandria, Virginia, have openly criticized the Justice Department regarding the inclusion of Lindsey Halligan's name on court documents. This controversy has escalated to the point where some judges have taken the extraordinary step of striking her name from official paperwork during court proceedings. Two magistrate judges, along with a district court judge, have expressed their disbelief that Halligan's name should appear on recent criminal case filings, including guilty plea documents and indictments. This follows a recent ruling that concluded she is not the U.S. Attorney.
During a criminal case hearing on Tuesday, Magistrate William Fitzpatrick asserted that filing criminal charging documents “under Ms. Halligan’s name” is “simply not acceptable.” According to a transcript obtained by CNN, Fitzpatrick and District Judge Michael Nachmanoff both emphasized that the ruling clearly stated Halligan was not the U.S. Attorney responsible for all cases. They noted that the Justice Department had neither appealed the ruling nor requested a stay to allow for a possible appeal. “The law in this district right now is that she is not and has not been the United States Attorney,” Fitzpatrick reiterated during the proceedings.
The recent bombshell ruling from Judge Cameron McGowan Currie clarified that Halligan could not be recognized as the U.S. Attorney, as she had not been Senate confirmed after 120 days of vacancy in the position nor sworn in by the judges of the court. This ruling also had broader implications, leading to the dismissal of criminal cases against high-profile figures such as former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James. Halligan's involvement with these cases was rendered “void,” as both Comey and James had pleaded not guilty to the charges against them.
Judge Nachmanoff, who presided over the Comey case, further exemplified the discontent with the Justice Department's handling of Halligan’s name in court documents. In a separate hearing for a Honduran man unlawfully present in the U.S., he stated that he would need to strike Halligan's name from the case records and expressed difficulty reconciling the court's opinion with the Justice Department's current actions. The ongoing exchanges, recorded during the hearings, highlight the lack of formal communication from the Justice Department concerning Halligan's status.
During additional criminal hearings, Fitzpatrick indicated his intention to remove Halligan's name from criminal court documents. Meanwhile, Magistrate Lindsey Vaala announced she would annotate new indictments to reflect the court's ruling regarding Halligan. The judges’ concerns revolve around the inconsistency of accepting indictments with a signature block that does not align with the previous judge’s decision. Vaala remarked that she would include an asterisk on the documents to reference Judge Currie’s decisions.
The turmoil within the Justice Department regarding Halligan's name on criminal filings is a direct consequence of the fallout from the dismissal of cases against Comey and James. Halligan had previously secured the indictments on her own, shortly after pressure from political figures, including President Donald Trump. Since then, the Justice Department has continued to publicly support Halligan, despite the legal ambiguity surrounding her position.
The U.S. Attorney’s Office is reportedly preparing to seek a renewed grand jury indictment against Comey for alleged false statements to Congress, although Halligan is not expected to lead this effort as she did previously. In light of recent rulings, the Justice Department has attempted to guide its prosecutors on how to proceed with court filings, issuing multiple internal emails. Initially, prosecutors were instructed to remove Halligan's name, but later guidance suggested listing her name at the bottom of criminal case filings.
The Justice Department has provided little legal reasoning for maintaining Halligan's name on court filings, leaving many prosecutors feeling uninformed. Tony Roberts, a long-time prosecutor, noted that the Office of Legal Counsel had advised keeping Halligan's name as it has appeared on the indictments. He acknowledged the unusual nature of the situation, stating, “It’s something I’ve never seen in my 35 years.” The lack of clarity and guidance has left many in the Alexandria office alarmed, with judges expressing disappointment over the uncertainty faced by the prosecutors.
The ongoing legal saga regarding Lindsey Halligan and the implications for the Justice Department underscore the complexities of legal processes and the high stakes involved in federal prosecutions. As the situation unfolds, the actions of the U.S. Attorney’s Office and the responses from the judiciary will be critical in shaping the future of these high-profile cases.