A federal judge on Tuesday ordered the loyalist prosecutor chosen by President Trump in the Eastern District of Virginia to explain in writing why she had continued to lay claim to being the U.S. attorney there, even after a different judge determined that she had been unlawfully appointed to the post.
The order by the judge, David J. Novak, in Federal District Court in Richmond, Va., was the most robust effort to date to press the prosecutor, Lindsey Halligan, on why she has continued to serve in the job, despite a ruling disqualifying her from performing it. Judge Novak gave Ms. Halligan seven days to respond to his demands to tell him why her repeated decisions to sign court papers as the district’s top prosecutor were not “a false or misleading statement” — a move, he suggested, that could lead to disciplinary measures.
Judge Novak’s order came some six weeks after Judge Cameron McGowan Currie found that the Justice Department had violated both the Constitution and laws governing the appointment of U.S. attorneys when it installed Ms. Halligan in the post, after Mr. Trump fired her predecessor.
Judge Currie’s determination that Ms. Halligan had been improperly put in place led her to dismiss a pair of criminal cases that the new prosecutor had filed against two of the president’s most prominent adversaries: James B. Comey, the former F.B.I. director, and Letitia James, the New York attorney general.
While the ruling by Judge Currie, who was brought in from a district in South Carolina to consider Ms. Halligan’s appointment, found it was invalid, it did not expressly order her removed from the office. The Justice Department has seized on that to keep Ms. Halligan in place, irritating several judges in her district.
Judge Novak, a Trump appointee, made clear that he believed Judge Currie’s ruling was “binding” on Ms. Halligan, and took the unusual step of directing her to explain herself without the defendant in the case asking him to do so. He acknowledged that the Justice Department had appealed Judge Currie’s disqualification ruling, but also pointed out that her order had not been paused pending that appeal.
“Consequently,” he wrote, “it remains the binding precedent in this district and is not subject to being ignored.”
Judge Currie’s decision to disqualify Ms. Halligan centered on Mr. Trump’s unorthodox move to appoint her in an interim capacity, replacing his previous pick, who was also serving in a temporary role. Judge Currie found it was unlawful to appoint two interim prosecutors in succession.
Mr. Trump fired Ms. Halligan’s predecessor, Erik S. Siebert, after he refused to bring charges against Mr. Comey and Ms. James.
Other judges have rejected the Justice Department’s efforts to put in place other U.S. attorneys in a similar fashion. Last month, for instance, a federal appeals court ruled that the maneuvers used to keep a Trump loyalist, Alina Habba, as the U.S. attorney in New Jersey were also invalid and a violation of federal law.
Alan Feuer covers extremism and political violence for The Times, focusing on the criminal cases involving the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol and against former President Donald J. Trump.
The post Judge Orders Trump Loyalist to Explain Why She Has Kept U.S. Attorney Title appeared first on New York Times.
