Halligan
(Photo
by
Al
Drago/Getty
Images)
When
a
federal
judge
orders
the
government
to
explain
why
it
persists
in
calling
someone
the
United
States
Attorney
after
another
judge
already
established
that
the
appointment
was
illegal,
there
are
really
only
two
ways
that
can
go.
Either
the
Department
of
Justice
sheepishly
admits
that
it’s
committing
a
fraud
upon
the
court
with
its
signature
blocks,
or
files
an
11-page
motion
that
says,
“Rule
of
law?
Never
heard
of
her.”
You’ll
be
shocked
to
learn
which
door
Pam
Bondi’s
office
chose.
Judge
David
Novak’s
January
6
order,
gave
the
government
a
week
to
explain
why
Lindsey
Halligan
keeps
showing
up
as
the
U.S.
Attorney
on
filings
despite
absolutely
not
being
the
U.S.
Attorney
—
real,
acting,
or
interim.
When
we
last
covered
this,
we
wrote:
And
she
now
has
a
week
to
come
up
with
an
explanation
that
somehow
reconciles “Judge
Currie
ruled
I
am
not
the
U.S.
Attorney” with “I
keep
calling
myself
the
U.S.
Attorney
anyway.” That’s…
quite
the
needle
to
thread.
But
thread
it
they
nonetheless
tried.
In
today’s
filing
—
flagged
by
Chris
Geidner
—
the
Justice
Department
responded
with
11
pages
of
“How
dare
you,
sir!”
Backing
up
its
indignation,
the
DOJ
offers…
well,
not
much.
The
filing
is
remarkable
not
because
it’s
unpersuasive
—
though
it
is
certainly
not
—
but
because
it
manages
to
be
wrong
in
so
many
different
ways
while
insisting,
loudly,
that
everyone
else
is
misunderstanding
how
courts
work.
As
you
recall,
when
Judge
Cameron
McGowan
Currie
tossed
purported
indictments
against
former
FBI
Director
James
Comey
and
current
NY
Attorney
General
Letitia
James,
she
noted
that
Lindsey
Halligan
was
illegally
pretending
to
be
the
interim
U.S.
Attorney.
The
insurance
lawyer
with
zero
prosecutorial
experience
landed
in
the
role
after
Donald
Trump
posted
a
DM
intended
for
Pam
Bondi
complaining
that
she
hadn’t
done
enough
to
baselessly
prosecute
his
enemies.
Soon
after,
the
DOJ
fired
the
existing
interim
U.S.
Attorney,
Erik
Siebert,
purporting
to
replace
him
with
Halligan.
But
since
the
statutory
120-day
limit
on
interim
appointments
already
lapsed,
the
DOJ
couldn’t
legally
appoint
another
interim
candidate
to
the
job.
Confronted
with
this
straightforward
set
of
facts
and
law,
the
DOJ
responds,
“nuh
uh.”
Contrary
to
this
Court’s
suggestion,
nothing
in
the
Comey
and
James
dismissal
orders
prohibits
Ms.
Halligan
from
performing
the
functions
of
or
holding
herself
out
as
the
United
States
Attorney.
Although
Judge
Currie
concluded
that
Ms.
Halligan
was
unlawfully
appointed
under
Section
546,
she
did
not
purport
to
enjoin
Ms.
Halligan
from
continuing
to
oversee
the
office
or
from
identifying
herself
as
the
United
States
Attorney
in
the
Government’s
signature
blocks.
Sure,
the
judge
ruled
that
the
prosecutor
possessed
no
legal
authority,
but
why
would
we
expect
that
to
carry
over
to
other
cases?
Under
the
DOJ’s
garbled
logic,
the
only
remedy
for
illegal
prosecutorial
action
is
for
each
and
every
defendant
to
fight
it
out
in
their
own
cases.
This
is
like
arguing
that
because
a
court
vacated
your
speeding
ticket,
you’re
entitled
to
keep
telling
every
cop
you’re
legally
allowed
to
go
90.
In
fact,
Judge
Currie
rejected
the
defendant’s
request
in
James
to
enjoin
Ms.
Halligan
from
performing
any
“functions
or
duties
of
an
interim
U.S.
Attorney,”
James,
ECF
No.
22
at
16.
See
James,
ECF
No.
140
at
25.
This
is
a
reading
comprehension
fail.
Judge
Currie
acknowledged
that
there
could
be
tasks
involved
in
running
the
office
that
are
not
constitutional
violations,
but
that
tasks
like,
you
know,
signing
filings
as
the
U.S.
Attorney,
are
definitely
illegal.
This
Court
appears
to
be
under
the
misimpression
that
because
Judge
Currie’s
rationale
for
dismissing
the
indictments
was
her
conclusion
that
Ms.
Halligan
was
unlawfully
appointed,
the
United
States
must
acquiesce
to
that
rationale
in
all
other
cases
or
else
it
is
“ignor[ing]”
Judge
Currie’s
orders.
Just
seven
months
ago,
the
Supreme
Court
characterized
that
“vision
of
the
judicial
function”
as
“extreme”
and
“at
odds
with
more
than
two
centuries’
worth
of
precedent,
not
to
mention
the
Constitution
itself.”
This
is
sovereign
citizen
levels
of
pulling
case
cites
to
make
a
string
of
non-sequiturs.The
Supreme
Court’s
recent
efforts
to
blow
up
nationwide
injunctions
has
nothing
to
do
with
this
case.
District
court
opinions
aren’t
automatically
binding
upon
the
rest
of
the
district,
but
in
this
instance,
Judge
Currie
was
designated
to
fully
resolve
the
issue
of
Halligan’s
appointment
for
the
benefit
of
the
whole
district.
Judge
Currie’s
ruling
even
concluded
that
the
district
judges
are
the
only
ones
with
the
power
to
appoint
an
interim
U.S.
Attorney
at
this
point
absent
a
presidential
nomination.
The
government
can
disagree
all
it
wants
—
and
is
more
than
free
to
appeal
—
but
absent
a
contrary
ruling,
continuing
to
identify
Halligan
in
the
Eastern
District
as
the
U.S.
Attorney
is
just
trolling.
Dangerous
trolling
because
it
compromises
serious
criminal
prosecutions
for
what
amounts
to
a
bit.
And
any
attorney
signing
onto
the
government’s
contemptuous
position
deserves
an
ethical
referral.
When
the
government
has
already
been
told
it’s
acting
illegally
and
didn’t
stop,
it’s
pretty
clear
how
they
feel
about
ethics.
(Check
out
filing
on
the
next
page…)
Earlier:
Judge
Demands
Fake
U.S.
Attorney
Explain
Why
She’s
Still
Pretending
To
Be
U.S.
Attorney
Lindsey
Halligan
Resolves
To
Embarrass
Herself
At
SCOTUS
In
2026
Lindsey
Halligan
Manages
To
Lose
Two
Cases
At
Once,
Which
Is
Honestly
Impressive
Joe
Patrice is
a
senior
editor
at
Above
the
Law
and
co-host
of
Thinking
Like
A
Lawyer.
Feel
free
to email
any
tips,
questions,
or
comments.
Follow
him
on Twitter or
Bluesky
if
you’re
interested
in
law,
politics,
and
a
healthy
dose
of
college
sports
news.
Joe
also
serves
as
a
Managing
Director
at
RPN
Executive
Search.