In a significant legal development, a federal judge in Virginia has ordered Lindsey Halligan to provide a written explanation for continuing to label herself as the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of the Commonwealth. This directive follows a previous November ruling by another judge, which declared her appointment to that position unlawful.

U.S. District Judge David Novak, who was appointed by former President Trump in 2019, has granted Halligan a seven-day window to comply with the order. In his directive, Judge Novak requested that she clarify why her self-identification should not be considered a false or misleading statement.

This recent order from Judge Novak arrives more than a month after Senior U.S. District Judge Cameron Currie dismissed criminal charges against former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James. Judge Currie’s decision underscored that Halligan lacked the legal authority to pursue indictments against these key figures, both of whom have been longstanding opponents of President Trump.

The legal teams representing Comey and James argued that Halligan needed Senate confirmation. This requirement came into play after Attorney General Pam Bondi’s interim appointment of Erik Siebert ran its 120-day course. Siebert resigned on September 19, after facing public criticism from Trump for his failure to prosecute the former FBI director.

Following Siebert’s resignation, Comey’s attorneys asserted that the judges of the Eastern District should have had the exclusive authority to appoint a successor to fill the vacancy, highlighting a significant procedural contention.

Instead, Trump nominated Halligan, a former Colorado beauty queen and onetime Florida insurance lawyer, while publicly imploring Bondi in a social media post to take action against Comey, James and Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.).

Currie’s ruling did not expressly order Halligan removed from office and the Justice Department has appealed it.

However, Novak wrote that “no stay has been issued in conjunction with that appeal,” meaning that Currie’s finding “remains the binding precedent in this district and is not subject to being ignored.”