type: timeline_event
U.S. District Judge Leonie M. Brinkema of the Eastern District of Virginia became the third federal judge to publicly question Lindsey Halligan's continued tenure as U.S. Attorney, explicitly suggesting she should resign following a November ruling that declared her appointment unlawful. During a Tuesday hearing, Judge Brinkema pressed federal prosecutors to explain why Halligan's name remained on court filings despite the judicial determination that her appointment was invalid. When noting that New Jersey U.S. Attorney Alina Habba had resigned the previous day (December 8) after facing similar legal challenges to her appointment, Judge Brinkema stated: "That's the proper position, in my view."
Despite the judicial pressure, Halligan continued to be listed on Department of Justice court documents. According to anonymous sources, the DOJ's Office of Legal Counsel advised that Halligan could remain in her position because the court's November 24 ruling did not explicitly mandate her removal—it only declared the appointment invalid. This legal interpretation allowed the DOJ to maintain Halligan in her role despite mounting judicial criticism. Judge Brinkema's suggestion followed similar concerns expressed by two magistrate judges in Alexandria, Virginia, who had previously told prosecutors in open court that they did not believe Halligan's name should appear on new criminal case filings.
On the same day, the Justice Department confirmed in a court filing that it plans to continue efforts to prosecute former FBI Director James Comey, referring to the situation as both a "pending criminal investigation" and "a potential federal criminal prosecution." This came two weeks after Comey's indictment was dismissed by Judge Cameron McGowan Currie on November 24, specifically because Halligan had been serving unlawfully when she secured the indictment. The DOJ's determination to pursue a new prosecution despite the judicial rebuke highlighted the administration's commitment to the politically charged case, even as it faced significant legal obstacles regarding evidence admissibility. The episode underscored a growing confrontation between the federal judiciary and the Justice Department over prosecutorial authority and the rule of law.