A federal judge on Tuesday ordered Trump ally Lindsay Harrigan to explain why she continues to refer to herself as the U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, even though another judge ruled last November that she was illegally appointed to the position.
U.S. District Judge David Nowak in Richmond issued a three-page order demanding information about why Halligan is still serving. Harrigan, who unsuccessfully prosecuted former FBI Director James Comey and New York State Attorney General Letitia James, is also referred to as the U.S. attorney in official Justice Department documents.
The judge’s order was unusual because he issued it on his own initiative rather than at the request of defense attorneys. It was a case involving a carjacking and attempted bank robbery suspect who was indicted last month.
Novak gave Halligan seven days to respond in writing, “explaining … the basis on which she identified herself as the United States Attorney despite Judge Curry’s ruling to the contrary. She should also explain why this court should not remove Ms. Halligan’s basis for identifying herself as the United States Attorney from the indictment in this case.”
The judge also ordered Halligan to “further explain why her identity does not constitute a false or misleading statement.” Novak also mentioned possible disciplinary action and asked Halligan to sign her response.
The U.S. Attorney’s Office did not immediately respond to a request for comment late Tuesday.
In late November, U.S. District Judge Cameron McGowan Currie found that the Justice Department violated the Constitution by appointing Harrigan as U.S. attorney. That discovery led to the dismissal of the criminal cases against Comey and James.
Currie ruled that “all actions arising out of Ms. Harrigan’s flawed appointment, including securing and signing Mr. Comey’s indictment, were unlawful exercises of executive authority.” She issued a separate similar ruling in the James case, saying Harrigan exercised powers she “unlawfully possessed.”
Novak acknowledged Tuesday that the November ruling on Harrigan’s appointment has been appealed, but said that because the order is not suspended, it remains “a binding precedent for the district that cannot be ignored.”
Other judges in the district have previously expressed frustration with Halligan, one of whom now puts an asterisk next to Halligan’s name in every court filing alongside a reference to Currie’s ruling from November.
This article originally appeared on NBCNews.com
