Lindsey Halligan, 36, is leaving her position as interim U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia after serving the maximum 120 days permitted under federal law, Attorney General Pam Bondi announced Tuesday night.
Halligan was appointed to the role following the resignation of Erik Siebert on Sept. 19, 2025, and her departure comes amid ongoing legal disputes over the legitimacy of her authority while serving in the interim position, the Associated Press reported.
President Donald Trump nominated Halligan for the permanent post, but her nomination failed to secure Senate confirmation, setting the stage for a series of judicial challenges that ultimately limited her ability to act as U.S. Attorney.
Siebert stepped down after public criticism from Trump, who accused him of failing to pursue criminal charges against former FBI Director James Comey.
Following Halligan’s appointment, several federal judges raised concerns about whether she could lawfully exercise the powers of U.S. Attorney once the statutory interim period had been exhausted.
Chief U.S. District Judge M. Hannah Lauck ordered the formal publication of a vacancy announcement for the position, directing that applications for a replacement be submitted by Feb. 10, 2026.
The legal dispute surrounding Halligan’s role evolved into a broader confrontation over the balance of power between the executive branch and the judiciary in the appointment of federal prosecutors.
In November 2025, the New York Post reported that Senior U.S. District Judge Cameron Currie dismissed criminal cases involving Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James.
Currie ruled that Halligan lacked lawful authority to secure indictments because the 120-day interim appointment allowance had already been used during Siebert’s tenure.
Defense attorneys in those cases argued that Halligan’s appointment required either Senate confirmation or formal selection by district judges once the statutory limit had been reached.
The Department of Justice has appealed Currie’s ruling, arguing that Halligan’s appointment complied with federal law and longstanding practice.
Earlier this month, U.S. District Judge David Novak took additional action by striking Halligan’s title from an indictment’s signature block.
Novak also barred Halligan from using the title of U.S. Attorney in any future court filings.
He warned that disciplinary measures could follow if his order was disregarded by Halligan or other Justice Department officials.
“No matter all of her machinations, Ms. Halligan has no legal basis to represent to this Court that she holds the position,” Novak wrote in a sharply worded ruling.
Novak further criticized the tone of a Justice Department filing supported by Bondi and Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche.
“Ms. Halligan’s response contains a level of vitriol more appropriate for a cable news talk show,” Novak wrote.
Bondi defended Halligan’s service and criticized the judicial rulings that curtailed her authority.
“The circumstances that led to this outcome are deeply misguided,” Bondi said in a statement.
Bondi argued that the decisions reflect growing obstacles facing a democratically elected president’s ability to staff key law enforcement positions during periods of transition.
Supporters of Halligan contend that judicial interpretations of appointment statutes are being applied in an overly restrictive manner.
They argue that interim appointments are intended to ensure continuity in federal law enforcement operations.
Critics of the rulings warn that limiting executive flexibility could leave major U.S. Attorney offices leaderless during critical periods.
With Halligan’s departure, the Eastern District of Virginia now faces a leadership vacancy as the appeals process continues.
The outcome of the Justice Department’s appeal could have broader implications for future interim appointments nationwide.
For now, Halligan’s exit marks the end of a tenure defined not by prosecutorial outcomes but by a high-profile legal battle over authority, process, and separation of powers.