A federal judge on Tuesday ordered Trump ally Lindsey Halligan to explain why she continues to call herself the US attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia even though another judge determined in November that she was illegally appointed to the position.
US District Judge David Novak of Richmond issued a three-page order demanding to know why Halligan is still serving in office. Halligan, who unsuccessfully prosecuted former FBI director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James, is also named US attorney by the Justice Department in official documents.
The judge’s order is unusual because he issued it on his own, not at the request of defense lawyers. It came in a case involving the carjacking and attempted bank robbery suspect who was charged last month.
Novak gave Halligan seven days to respond in writing “to explain the basis for … identifying herself as the United States Attorney, notwithstanding Judge Currie’s ruling to the contrary. She must also explain the reasons why this Court should not strike Ms. Halligan’s identification of herself as the United States Attorney from the indictment in this matter.”
The judge’s order goes on to say that Halligan “must further explain why her identification does not constitute a false or misleading statement.” Novak also alluded to potential disciplinary action and demanded that Halligan sign her response.
The U.S. attorney’s office did not immediately respond to a request for comment Tuesday evening.
In late November, US District Judge Cameron McGowan Currie found that the Justice Department had violated the Constitution by appointing Halligan as US attorney. That finding led to the dismissal of criminal charges against Comey and James.
Currie ruled that all actions “resulting from the flawed appointment of Ms. Halligan, including securing and signing the indictment of Mr. Comey, were illegal exercises of executive power.” She issued a similar separate ruling in the James case, saying Halligan had exercised a power she “did not legally have.”
Novak acknowledged Tuesday that the November ruling on Halligan’s appointment had been appealed but said that since the order was not stayed, it remains the “binding precedent of the district and is not subject to being ignored.”
Other judges in the district have previously expressed their frustration with Halligan, including one who now places an asterisk next to Halligan’s name on every court document and next to it refers to Currie’s decision from November.
This article was originally published on NBCNews.com