{"id":141742,"date":"2026-01-14T06:48:29","date_gmt":"2026-01-14T14:48:29","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/2026\/01\/14\/lindsey-halligan-says-her-im-an-illegal-appointment-t-shirt-has-people-asking-a-lot-of-questions-already-answered-by-her-shirt\/"},"modified":"2026-01-14T06:48:29","modified_gmt":"2026-01-14T14:48:29","slug":"lindsey-halligan-says-her-im-an-illegal-appointment-t-shirt-has-people-asking-a-lot-of-questions-already-answered-by-her-shirt","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/2026\/01\/14\/lindsey-halligan-says-her-im-an-illegal-appointment-t-shirt-has-people-asking-a-lot-of-questions-already-answered-by-her-shirt\/","title":{"rendered":"Lindsey Halligan Says Her \u2018I\u2019m An Illegal Appointment\u2019 T-Shirt Has People Asking A Lot Of Questions Already Answered By Her Shirt"},"content":{"rendered":"

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<\/a>, there are really only two ways that can go. Either the Department of Justice sheepishly admits that it\u2019s committing a fraud upon the court with its signature blocks, or files an 11-page motion that says, \u201cRule of law? Never heard of her.\u201d<\/p>\n

You\u2019ll be shocked to learn which door Pam Bondi\u2019s office chose.<\/p>\n

Judge David Novak\u2019s 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 \u2014 real, acting, or interim. When we last covered this, we wrote<\/a>:<\/p>\n

\n

And she now has a week to come up with an explanation that somehow reconciles\u00a0\u201cJudge Currie ruled I am not the U.S. Attorney<\/strong>\u201d<\/em>\u00a0with\u00a0\u201cI keep calling myself the U.S. Attorney anyway<\/strong>.\u201d<\/em>\u00a0That\u2019s\u2026 quite the needle to thread.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

But thread it they nonetheless tried. In today\u2019s filing<\/a> \u2014 flagged by Chris Geidner<\/a> \u2014 the Justice Department responded with 11 pages of \u201cHow dare you, sir!\u201d Backing up its indignation, the DOJ offers\u2026 well, not much. The filing is remarkable not because it\u2019s unpersuasive \u2014 though it is certainly not \u2014 but because it manages to be wrong in so many<\/em> different ways while insisting, loudly, that everyone else is misunderstanding how courts work.<\/p>\n

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<\/a> complaining that she hadn\u2019t done enough to baselessly prosecute his enemies. Soon after, the DOJ fired the existing interim U.S. Attorney<\/a>, Erik Siebert, purporting to replace him with Halligan. But since the statutory 120-day limit on interim appointments already lapsed, the DOJ couldn\u2019t legally appoint another interim candidate to the job.<\/p>\n

Confronted with this straightforward set of facts and law, the DOJ responds, \u201cnuh uh.\u201d<\/p>\n

\n

Contrary to this Court\u2019s suggestion, nothing in the Comey<\/em> and James<\/em> 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\u2019s signature blocks.\u00a0<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

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\u2019s garbled logic, the only remedy for illegal prosecutorial action is for each and every defendant to fight it out in their own cases.<\/p>\n

This is like arguing that because a court vacated your<\/em> speeding ticket, you\u2019re entitled to keep telling every cop you\u2019re legally allowed to go 90.<\/p>\n

\n

In fact, Judge Currie rejected the defendant\u2019s request in James<\/em> to enjoin Ms. Halligan from performing any \u201cfunctions or duties of an interim U.S. Attorney,\u201d James<\/em>, ECF No. 22 at 16. See James<\/em>, ECF No. 140 at 25.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

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<\/em>, are definitely illegal.<\/p>\n

\n

This Court appears to be under the misimpression that because Judge Currie\u2019s 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 \u201cignor[ing]\u201d Judge Currie\u2019s orders. Just seven months ago, the Supreme Court characterized that \u201cvision of the judicial function\u201d as \u201cextreme\u201d and \u201cat odds with more than two centuries\u2019 worth of precedent, not to mention the Constitution itself.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

This is sovereign citizen levels of pulling case cites to make a string of non-sequiturs.The Supreme Court\u2019s recent efforts to blow up nationwide injunctions<\/a> has nothing to do with this case. District court opinions aren\u2019t automatically binding upon the rest of the district, but in this instance, Judge Currie was designated to fully resolve the issue of Halligan\u2019s appointment<\/a> for the benefit of the whole district. Judge Currie\u2019s 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. <\/p>\n

The government can disagree all it wants \u2014 and is more than free to appeal \u2014 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\u2019s contemptuous position deserves an ethical referral. <\/p>\n

When the government has already been told it\u2019s acting illegally and didn\u2019t stop, it\u2019s pretty clear how they feel about ethics.<\/p>\n

(Check out filing on the next page\u2026)<\/em><\/p>\n

Earlier<\/strong>: Judge Demands Fake U.S. Attorney Explain Why She\u2019s Still Pretending To Be U.S. Attorney<\/a>
Lindsey Halligan Resolves To Embarrass Herself At SCOTUS In 2026<\/a>
Lindsey Halligan Manages To Lose Two Cases At Once, Which Is Honestly Impressive<\/a><\/p>\n

\n

\"Headshot\"Joe Patrice<\/a>\u00a0is a senior editor at Above the Law and co-host of Thinking Like A Lawyer<\/a>. Feel free to\u00a0email<\/a> any tips, questions, or comments. Follow him on\u00a0Twitter<\/a>\u00a0or Bluesky<\/a> if you\u2019re interested in law, politics, and a healthy dose of college sports news. Joe also serves as a Managing Director at RPN Executive Search<\/a>.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

The post Lindsey Halligan Says Her \u2018I\u2019m An Illegal Appointment\u2019 T-Shirt Has People Asking A Lot Of Questions Already Answered By Her Shirt<\/a> appeared first on Above the Law<\/a>.<\/p>\n

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<\/a>, there are really only two ways that can go. Either the Department of Justice sheepishly admits that it\u2019s committing a fraud upon the court with its signature blocks, or files an 11-page motion that says, \u201cRule of law? Never heard of her.\u201d<\/p>\n

You\u2019ll be shocked to learn which door Pam Bondi\u2019s office chose.<\/p>\n

Judge David Novak\u2019s 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 \u2014 real, acting, or interim. When we last covered this, we wrote<\/a>:<\/p>\n

\n

And she now has a week to come up with an explanation that somehow reconciles\u00a0\u201cJudge Currie ruled I am not the U.S. Attorney<\/strong>\u201d<\/em>\u00a0with\u00a0\u201cI keep calling myself the U.S. Attorney anyway<\/strong>.\u201d<\/em>\u00a0That\u2019s\u2026 quite the needle to thread.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

But thread it they nonetheless tried. In today\u2019s filing<\/a> \u2014 flagged by Chris Geidner<\/a> \u2014 the Justice Department responded with 11 pages of \u201cHow dare you, sir!\u201d Backing up its indignation, the DOJ offers\u2026 well, not much. The filing is remarkable not because it\u2019s unpersuasive \u2014 though it is certainly not \u2014 but because it manages to be wrong in so many<\/em> different ways while insisting, loudly, that everyone else is misunderstanding how courts work.<\/p>\n

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<\/a> complaining that she hadn\u2019t done enough to baselessly prosecute his enemies. Soon after, the DOJ fired the existing interim U.S. Attorney<\/a>, Erik Siebert, purporting to replace him with Halligan. But since the statutory 120-day limit on interim appointments already lapsed, the DOJ couldn\u2019t legally appoint another interim candidate to the job.<\/p>\n

Confronted with this straightforward set of facts and law, the DOJ responds, \u201cnuh uh.\u201d<\/p>\n

\n

Contrary to this Court\u2019s suggestion, nothing in the Comey<\/em> and James<\/em> 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\u2019s signature blocks.\u00a0<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

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\u2019s garbled logic, the only remedy for illegal prosecutorial action is for each and every defendant to fight it out in their own cases.<\/p>\n

This is like arguing that because a court vacated your<\/em> speeding ticket, you\u2019re entitled to keep telling every cop you\u2019re legally allowed to go 90.<\/p>\n

\n

In fact, Judge Currie rejected the defendant\u2019s request in James<\/em> to enjoin Ms. Halligan from performing any \u201cfunctions or duties of an interim U.S. Attorney,\u201d James<\/em>, ECF No. 22 at 16. See James<\/em>, ECF No. 140 at 25.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

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<\/em>, are definitely illegal.<\/p>\n

\n

This Court appears to be under the misimpression that because Judge Currie\u2019s 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 \u201cignor[ing]\u201d Judge Currie\u2019s orders. Just seven months ago, the Supreme Court characterized that \u201cvision of the judicial function\u201d as \u201cextreme\u201d and \u201cat odds with more than two centuries\u2019 worth of precedent, not to mention the Constitution itself.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

This is sovereign citizen levels of pulling case cites to make a string of non-sequiturs.The Supreme Court\u2019s recent efforts to blow up nationwide injunctions<\/a> has nothing to do with this case. District court opinions aren\u2019t automatically binding upon the rest of the district, but in this instance, Judge Currie was designated to fully resolve the issue of Halligan\u2019s appointment<\/a> for the benefit of the whole district. Judge Currie\u2019s 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. <\/p>\n

The government can disagree all it wants \u2014 and is more than free to appeal \u2014 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\u2019s contemptuous position deserves an ethical referral. <\/p>\n

When the government has already been told it\u2019s acting illegally and didn\u2019t stop, it\u2019s pretty clear how they feel about ethics.<\/p>\n

(Check out filing on the next page\u2026)<\/em><\/p>\n

Earlier<\/strong>: Judge Demands Fake U.S. Attorney Explain Why She\u2019s Still Pretending To Be U.S. Attorney<\/a>
Lindsey Halligan Resolves To Embarrass Herself At SCOTUS In 2026<\/a>
Lindsey Halligan Manages To Lose Two Cases At Once, Which Is Honestly Impressive<\/a><\/p>\n

\n

\"Headshot\"Joe Patrice<\/a>\u00a0is a senior editor at Above the Law and co-host of Thinking Like A Lawyer<\/a>. Feel free to\u00a0email<\/a> any tips, questions, or comments. Follow him on\u00a0Twitter<\/a>\u00a0or Bluesky<\/a> if you\u2019re interested in law, politics, and a healthy dose of college sports news. Joe also serves as a Managing Director at RPN Executive Search<\/a>.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

The post Lindsey Halligan Says Her \u2018I\u2019m An Illegal Appointment\u2019 T-Shirt Has People Asking A Lot Of Questions Already Answered By Her Shirt<\/a> appeared first on Above the Law<\/a>.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

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\u2019s committing a fraud upon the court with its […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":141663,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_et_pb_use_builder":"","_et_pb_old_content":"","_et_gb_content_width":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[16],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-141742","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-above_the_law"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/xira.com\/p\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/Headshot-300x200-OTfl38.jpg?fit=300%2C200&ssl=1","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/141742","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=141742"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/141742\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/141663"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=141742"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=141742"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=141742"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}