Lindsey Halligan Steps Down As Interim U.S. Attorney After Court Challenges

Lindsey Halligan, 36, will step down as interim U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia after reaching the 120-day service limit imposed by federal law, Attorney General Pam Bondi announced Tuesday night, bringing a turbulent and highly contested tenure to a close.

Halligan assumed the interim role following the resignation of Erik Siebert on Sept. 19, 2025. Her departure comes amid ongoing legal battles challenging the legitimacy of her authority, disputes that have increasingly exposed tensions between the executive branch and the federal judiciary, according to reporting by the Associated Press.

President Donald Trump nominated Halligan for the permanent position, but her nomination failed to receive Senate confirmation. That impasse set off a series of judicial confrontations that ultimately constrained her ability to function as U.S. Attorney beyond the statutory interim period.

Siebert resigned after public criticism from President Trump, who accused him of failing to pursue criminal charges against former FBI Director James Comey. In the aftermath, Halligan’s appointment quickly became the subject of scrutiny from the bench.

Several federal judges questioned whether Halligan could continue exercising the full authority of a U.S. Attorney once the interim appointment window had closed. Chief U.S. District Judge M. Hannah Lauck ordered that a formal vacancy notice be published, directing applications for a replacement to be submitted by Feb. 10, 2026.

What began as a procedural dispute soon escalated into a broader confrontation over separation of powers and the president’s constitutional authority to staff key law enforcement positions.

In November 2025, the New York Post reported that Senior U.S. District Judge Cameron Currie dismissed criminal cases involving Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James. Currie ruled that Halligan lacked lawful authority to obtain indictments, concluding that the 120-day interim appointment allowance had already been exhausted during Siebert’s tenure.

Defense attorneys argued that once that limit was reached, Halligan’s appointment required either Senate confirmation or formal selection by district judges. The Department of Justice has appealed Currie’s ruling, maintaining that Halligan’s appointment complied with federal law and established precedent.

The judicial pushback intensified earlier this month when U.S. District Judge David Novak struck Halligan’s title from an indictment’s signature block and barred her from using the title of U.S. Attorney in future filings. Novak warned that disciplinary action could follow if his order were ignored.

“No matter all of her machinations, Ms. Halligan has no legal basis to represent to this Court that she holds the position,” Novak wrote.

He also sharply criticized a Justice Department filing supported by Bondi and Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche, writing, “Ms. Halligan’s response contains a level of vitriol more appropriate for a cable news talk show.”

Bondi forcefully defended Halligan and condemned the rulings that curtailed her authority.

“The circumstances that led to this outcome are deeply misguided,” Bondi said in a statement.

Bondi argued that the decisions reflect increasing barriers to a democratically elected president’s ability to staff senior law enforcement roles during periods of transition. Supporters of Halligan echo that concern, warning that overly narrow interpretations of appointment statutes undermine continuity and stability in federal prosecutions.

Critics of the court rulings caution that restricting executive flexibility risks leaving major U.S. Attorney offices without leadership at critical moments. With Halligan’s departure, the Eastern District of Virginia now faces precisely that scenario as the Justice Department’s appeals move forward.

The outcome of the litigation could shape how interim appointments are handled nationwide. For now, Halligan exits a post defined less by prosecutorial action than by an unprecedented legal fight over authority, process, and the balance of power.