Lindsey Halligan, the prosecutor handpicked by Donald Trump to indict two of the president’s political enemies, has been left out of discussions about whether she can still be considered employed in a top U.S. attorney’s office, according to a report. Halligan, a former Miss Colorado beauty pageant contestant with no prior experience in criminal law, was ruled by a judge to be unlawfully serving as interim U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, therefore voiding the charges she brought against former FBI Director James Comey and New York state Attorney General Letitia James.
The Department of Justice is still determining how it can pursue the cases against Comey and James as part of Trump’s revenge tour, with Halligan’s role as a top federal prosecutor in limbo following the decision from U.S. District Judge Cameron Currie. A source told CNN that Halligan is not involved in internal DOJ discussions about whether the department will continue the cases without her, and it is not even clear whether she will report to her office in Alexandria on Monday.
A separate report noted that Attorney General Pam Bondi spoke with Halligan after Currie—who was appointed by President Bill Clinton—ruled that Trump’s former personal attorney was serving unlawfully as a federal prosecutor but offered no clarity on whether she still has a job. The uncertainty over Halligan’s status comes as the court’s ruling has generated questions about whether her prosecutions can proceed and under what authority.
Halligan’s tenure at the EDVA gained notoriety for its rapid rise and abrupt fall: she was appointed interim U.S. attorney after her predecessor, Erik Siebert, resigned under pressure to charge Comey and James with disputed allegations of lying to Congress and fraud, respectively. Her supporters highlighted that she had no prior experience in criminal law but argued that the appointment reflected the political pressures surrounding high-profile investigations.
The controversy intensified when it emerged that Comey was charged by Halligan’s office just days after Trump publicly complained to Attorney General Bondi on Truth Social that “nothing is being done” about prosecuting his enemies, a post that administration allies said was meant as a direct message to law enforcement. Critics, meanwhile, pointed to gaps in the process and questioned whether the case could be legitimate if Halligan’s appointment lacked the required legal authorization.
Last month’s reports that a grand jury did not see a full and final indictment before the foreperson signed the charging document against Comey further fueled concerns about how the office was conducting its prosecutions. The DOJ has said it is considering appealing Currie’s ruling and may still attempt to refile charges against Comey and James if permissible under the law.
An official close to DOJ headquarters denied that Halligan is being excluded from all discussions about whether she remains a federal prosecutor and said the department would issue a memo clarifying that Currie’s ruling did not remove her from the job; a Daily Beast interview with a DOJ spokesperson, however, suggested the department “continues to consult with her the same way we do all U.S. Attorneys caught in this ridiculous appointment dilemma.”
Internal emails obtained by outlets showed minor missteps in internal communications—such as a misspelling of Halligan’s title—illustrating the unsettled nature of the situation. Yet even as the department grapples with who controls the cases, Halligan’s name remains listed as the lead attorney on the EDVA website, underscoring the still-unclear practical implications of Currie’s decision.
The Daily Beast, CNN, and other outlets have reported that the case landscape in EDVA remains unsettled, with major decisions looming about how to proceed in a way that adheres to the rule of law while confronting the political pressures that accompanied Halligan’s appointment. As the legal process plays out, observers are watching whether the department will attempt to reframe or refile the charges at issue, or whether the cases will proceed under different authority.
The episode surfaces broader questions about how political influence can shape prosecutions and what happens when an interim appointment is challenged in court. It also raises practical concerns for defendants and witnesses who have been drawn into politically charged investigations and highlights the ongoing tension between the executive branch and the judiciary in enforcement matters.
Disclosure: We may earn a commission when you make a purchase through the ads.