After residing in the area for just four months, Lindsey Halligan’s situation took another turn when the chief judge in her jurisdiction ordered the court’s clerk to place advertisements in multiple newspapers. This initiative seeks to attract lawyers interested in becoming the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, occurring only a week after the Department of Justice staunchly defended Halligan in court once more.

Chief U.S. District Court Judge M. Hannah Lauck, appointed by President Barack Obama, issued an official order referencing 28 U.S.C. § 546(d). This order declared that as of Tuesday, Halligan’s role is officially vacant, necessitating a new appointment. This situation mirrors a previous instance when Alina Habba’s temporary role as U.S. Attorney was approaching its conclusion in July.

The court’s order emphasized the use of authority granted by 28 U.S.C. § 546(d) to appoint an Interim U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia. The position is to remain filled by an interim appointee until a Senate-confirmed candidate assumes the role. It highlighted that the 120-day tenure, the maximum allowed for an interim U.S. attorney, has elapsed since Halligan’s appointment by U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi on September 22.

According to the statute, if an appointment lapses, the district court has the power to appoint a U.S. Attorney to fill the vacancy until a permanent replacement is confirmed.

Law&Crime has extensively reported on the repercussions of Bondi’s decision to appoint Halligan, a lawyer with a background in insurance and recent experience as a criminal defense attorney for former President Donald Trump. This decision resulted in the dismissal of criminal cases against ex-FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James. A federal judge deemed Bondi’s attempt to retroactively validate Halligan’s interim appointment through special attorney status as ineffective, highlighting the issue of “stacking successive 120-day appointments” for a role that requires Senate approval.

“The power to appoint an interim U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia pursuant to [federal law] lies with the district court until a U.S. Attorney is nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate[,]” Senior U.S. District Judge Cameron McGowan Currie, a Bill Clinton appointee, concluded in her dismissal order.

As the DOJ is in the process of appealing those high-profile case dismissals, the issue of Halligan’s title on court filings two weeks ago caught the attention of U.S. District Judge David J. Novak, a Donald Trump appointee.

Novak ordered the government to answer why Halligan had identified herself on an indictment as U.S. attorney “despite a binding Court Order” by Currie, which “found that the ‘appointment of Ms. Halligan as Interim U.S. Attorney violated 28 U.S.C. § 546 and the Appointments Clause of the U.S. Constitution.’”

A week later, the DOJ said the judge’s question amounted to an “inquisition” and a “gross abuse of power.”

“The order launching this quest reflects a fundamental misunderstanding,” the DOJ said, “and flouts no fewer than three separate lines of Supreme Court precedent on elementary principles like the role of federal courts, the effect of district court rulings, and the nature of our adversarial system.”

Bondi’s DOJ maintained the adverse ruling did “not prohibit, or render factually false” that Halligan “is the United States Attorney,” because Currie’s dismissal was “not an independent declaratory judgment” and “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’s signature blocks.”

“This Court appears to be under the misimpression that because Judge Currie’s 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 ‘ignor[ing]’ Judge Currie’s orders,” the DOJ went on, accusing Novak of wrongly raising the prospect of potential “attorney discipline” and making a “rudimentary legal error” in calling the dismissal “binding.”

Now the district court is moving ahead by directing the clerk to “publish a vacancy announcement on the Court’s website,” which has already occurred in Virginia Lawyers Weekly and in several newspapers, including the Richmond Times-Dispatch, The Washington Post, and The Virginian-Pilot.

“If a person wishes to be considered for possible appointment under 28 U.S.C. § 546(d) as the Interim United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, that person shall complete and submit to the Clerk of the Court within 21 days (i.e. no later than February 10, 2026) the Confidential Expression of Interest in Serving as the Interim Court-Appointed United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia,” the order concluded.

Before Habba’s interim term expired, a New Jersey district court appointed then-First Assistant U.S. Attorney Desiree Grace as her replacement. But Bondi, claiming “rogue judges” had overstepped, swiftly fired Grace, accepted Habba’s resignation, and then installed Habba right back into the top role as acting U.S. attorney by default through the vacant office of the first assistant U.S. attorney and as a special attorney with office oversight powers.

A federal judge in Pennsylvania sitting by designation later ruled that Habba was unlawfully appointed, which a three-judge panel on the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed.

Although Habba resigned in December, the DOJ just last week sought a rehearing by the full — en banc — 3rd Circuit.

It raises the question of whether Bondi will, before the clock strikes midnight, once again apply the repeatedly failed Habba approach to Halligan’s situation and blame “rogue judges,” but as of early Tuesday afternoon the AG has not yet reacted.

Novak on Tuesday issued an order that “hereby strikes the words ‘United States Attorney’ from the signature block on the Indictment, as well as all other Government filings” in the DOJ’s case against Davante Aandrell Jefferson.

The order “further bars Ms. Halligan from representing herself as the United States Attorney in any pleading or otherwise before this Court until such time as she may lawfully hold the office either by Senate confirmation or appointment by this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 546(d), should either occur,” the judge specified, also noting that Halligan’s DOJ employment is “no safe haven from the ethical rules of this Court, regardless of her state bar membership.”

“That bar shall become effective at 12:01 a.m. on January 21, 2026, and shall apply to any filings submitted thereafter; The Court further orders that Ms. Halligan shall provide a copy of this Memorandum Order to the Attorney General and Deputy Attorney General, since they appear as signatories on her Response,” Novak stated, before adding in an uppercut.

“In short, this charade of Ms. Halligan masquerading as the United States Attorney for this District in direct defiance of binding court orders must come to an end,” the judge said, with a footnote parting shot: “For the avoidance of any doubt, this bar does not prevent Ms. Halligan from entering an appearance or signing her name to pleadings in this Court as a ‘Special Attorney,’ whatever that title may mean.”