Filed Date: Dec. 2, 2025
Case Ongoing
Clearinghouse coding complete
On January 20, 2025, Jessica Aber, who had been nominated by President Biden and confirmed by the Senate, resigned from her position as U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia. The Attorney General appointed Erik Siebert as Interim U.S. Attorney under 28 U.S.C. § 546. The judges of the district exercised their authority under the Federal Vacancies Reform Act of 1998 (FVRA) to appoint Siebert to continue this position. However, on September 19, 2025, Siebert resigned, citing concerns about the viability of pursuing charges against former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James. Attorney General Bondi appointed Lindsey Halligan, a former White House aide with no prior prosecutorial experience, Interim U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia two days later, on September 23, 2025.
On September 25, 2025, a grand jury sitting in the Eastern District of Virginia returned a two-count indictment against Comey. Halligan was the only prosecutor who participated in the Government’s presentation to the grand jury, and only her signature appears on Comey’s indictment. Comey then moved to dismiss the indictment on the grounds that Halligan's appointment was unlawful under 28 USC § 546 and violated the Appointments Clause. Senior Judge Cameron McGowan Currie was assigned to resolve this motion.
The court agreed that Halligan was appointed unlawfully. 2025 WL 3266932. Under § 546, the Attorney General’s authority to appoint an interim U.S. Attorney lasts for a total of 120 days from the date she first invokes § 546 after the departure of a Senate-confirmed U.S. Attorney. If the position remains vacant at the end of the 120-day period, the exclusive authority to make further interim appointments under the statute shifts to the district court, where it remains until the President’s nominee is confirmed by the Senate. Judge Currie reasoned that since the Attorney General already appointed Mr. Siebert, Bond's appointment authority ended 120-days after Siebert had been appointed on January 21, 2025. Therefore, Halligan had been unlawfully serving since September 22, 2025.
The court then turned to whether dismissal of the indictment would be the appropriate remedy. The court concluded "that all actions flowing from Ms. Halligan’s defective appointment, including securing and signing Mr. Comey’s indictment, constitute unlawful exercises of executive power and must be set aside. There is simply 'no alternative course to cure the unconstitutional problem.'" Judge Currie concluded that dismissal without prejudice would be appropriate because it would restore Comey to the position he occupied prior to being subjected to Halligan's invalid acts.
Separately, on December 2, 2025, a grand jury indicted Devante Aandrell Jefferson, the defendant in this matter, in the Eastern District of Virginia. Magistrate Judge Summer L. Speight was assigned to the case. After reviewing the indictment, the court noticed that Halligan identified herself as United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia on Jefferson’s indictment despite Judge Currie's order. On January 6, 2026, the court ordered Halligan to file a pleading explaining why she identified herself in contravention of Judge Currie's order and why this would not constitute a false or misleading statement, in violation of Virginia's Rules of Professional Conduct.
The United States responded to the court’s request on January 13, 2026. They made two principal arguments: First, they argued that the dismissal orders in the Comey and James cases did not prohibit the United States’ continued representation of its legal position that Halligan is the United States Attorney. They contended that the court deciding the Comey and James cases “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,” and merely dismissed the indictments without prejudice. Even if the court had issued declaratory judgment in those cases, they argued that “[n]othing in the Declaratory Judgment Act authorizes a district court to issue advisory declarations governing the Executive Branch’s conduct in unrelated proceedings not before the court.” Further, “[a] decision of a federal district court judge is not binding precedent in either a different judicial district, the same judicial district, or even upon the same judge in a different case,” and so the decisions rendered by a district court in the Comey and James cases would not bind the court here. Second, the United States argued that the court’s “sua sponte objection to the Government’s signature block on the indictment violates the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure and the principle of party presentation at the core of our adversarial system.” The United States also countered the idea that there could be ethical implications of her false assertions in pleadings with the court due to “separation of powers concerns.”
The court issued an order on January 20, 2026, barring 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” effective at 12:01 a.m. on January 21, 2026. 2026 WL 145277.
The court cited three main reasons for its order: First, the court found that Halligan failed to recognize the “unique context” of Judge Currie’s order, as she was designated by the Chief Judge of the Fourth Circuit to resolve the issue of the “qualification, or disqualification of the United States Attorney or the United States Attorney’s Office” in the matter of United States v. Comey and all “other cases involving similar Challenges” pursuant to the authority vested in him as the Chief Judge of the Fourth Circuit and “in the interest of maintaining public confidence in the impartial administration of justice.” Second, the court rejected the United States’ argument that the court lacked authority to require Halligan to explain her use of the title of U.S. Attorney because “[i]t remains emphatically within the power of every federal judge to ‘preserve the integrity of the judicial process’ in service of the rule of law.’” Third and finally, the court found that the court had authority to sua sponte strike the errant portion of Halligan’s signature block, without a request by a defendant, because the court’s authority derived from “its inherent power to impose both ‘respect for, and compliance with[,] lawful mandates.’”
Following the order on January 20, 2026, Attorney General Pam Bondi announced in a social media post that Lindsey Halligan had left her post as interim U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia.
This case is ongoing.
Summary Authors
Jinan Abufarha (1/12/2026)
Madena Mustafa (2/12/2026)
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/71984576/parties/united-states-v-jefferson/
Novak, David (Virginia)
Anthony, Stephen Eugene (Virginia)
Groover, Katherine Elizabeth (Virginia)
Woodward, Lawrence Hunter (Virginia)
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/71984576/united-states-v-jefferson/
Last updated Feb. 27, 2026, 12:13 a.m.
State / Territory:
Case Type(s):
Presidential/Gubernatorial Authority
Special Collection(s):
Trump Administration 2.0: Challenges to the Government
Trump Administration 2.0: Litigation and Investigations Involving the Government
Key Dates
Filing Date: Dec. 2, 2025
Case Ongoing: Yes
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
The plaintiff in this case is the Department of Justice.
Plaintiff Type(s):
U.S. Dept of Justice plaintiff
Public Interest Lawyer: No
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: No
Class Action Outcome: Not sought
Defendants
Davante Aandrell Jefferson, Private Entity/Person
Case Details
Other Dockets:
Eastern District of Virginia 3:25-cr-00160
Special Case Type(s):
Available Documents:
Outcome
Prevailing Party: None Yet / None
Relief Sought:
Relief Granted:
Source of Relief:
Issues
Presidential/Gubernatorial Authority: