Letter The Steady State To Us Senate
Washington, DC 20510
Subject: Nomination of Ms. Lindsey Halligan for United States Attorney
Dear Chairman Grassley and Ranking Member Durbin:
I write on behalf of The Steady State– former senior national security officials from Democratic and Republican administrations – because the potential nomination of Ms. Lindsey Halligan to serve as United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia raises questions unlike any we have seen in modern Justice Department practice. These concerns go directly to the rule of law and the functioning of federal prosecution.
We write to urge the Senate Judiciary Committee to conduct a full and public hearing on the nomination of Ms. Halligan to serve as United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, and to use that hearing as a forum to explore the serious legal and ethical concerns raised by her conduct as a federal prosecutor.
The Eastern District of Virginia handles some of the nation’s most sensitive national security matters. Its chief federal prosecutor must meet the highest standards of legality, judgment, and independence. The publicly documented record of Ms. Halligan’s service to date falls far short of those standards, and it is essential that the American people are provided a full accounting.
A public hearing is urgently needed for five reasons:
1. A Federal Judge Has Already Ruled Her Appointment Illegal
A U.S. district judge has held that Ms. Halligan’s appointment as interim United States Attorney violated federal vacancy procedures, rendering her actions void. These included the indictments she brought personally against former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James, which were found to be unlawful. The public deserves to know whether she proceeded despite knowing her appointment lacked lawful authority.
2. Another Judge Has Questioned Whether She Misled a Grand Jury
A magistrate judge has reported concerns that Ms. Halligan made statements to grand jurors that misstated constitutional protections and DOJ practice, including implying that evidence not provided to the grand jury could be assumed or supplied later. Such conduct strikes at the heart of the integrity and independence of the grand jury, and undermines a core safeguard of our criminal justice system.
3. Her Charging Decisions Raise Questions About Improper Political Influence
The United States Department of Justice Manual requires prosecutors to act on evidence, not politics. The pattern of decisions surrounding the Comey and James cases raises credible concerns that established standards were not followed. The Senate must determine whether her decision-making was insulated from improper political direction, as DOJ guidance requires.
4. Unknown Actors May Have Participated in Charging Discussions
There is no public clarity about who Ms. Halligan consulted before pursuing high-profile prosecutions. If external or political actors were part of those discussions, that would represent a serious breach of established norms separating federal prosecutions from political influence. The Committee should inquire into with whom Ms. Halligan communicated regarding decisions to pursue charges against former FBI Director James Comey and Attorney General Letitia James — including any external actors such as political appointees or outside advisors — and whether any such communications were consistent with the ethical obligations and professional standards for prosecutors.
5. Multiple Ethics Complaints Are Already Pending Against Her
Independent watchdog organizations have filed bar complaints alleging potential violations of rules of professional conduct governing candor, competence and prosecutorial fairness. These concerns implicate Rule 3.3 (Candor Toward the Tribunal), Rule 3.4 (Fairness to Opposing Party and Counsel), and Rule 3.8 (Special Responsibilities of a Prosecutor), which requires prosecutors to ensure probable cause, disclose exculpatory evidence, and avoid misleading or prejudicial statements. Questions have also been raised under Rule 8.4, which prohibits conduct involving dishonesty or conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice. Given that Ms. Halligan’s alleged actions involve misleading statements before a grand jury and pursuing charges under an appointment already declared unlawful, such complaints cannot be dismissed as routine. They speak directly to her fitness for the office she now seeks.
Taken together, these issues represent a pattern inconsistent with the independence Americans expect from their federal prosecutors. When a nominee’s appointment has been ruled unlawful, her indictments dismissed, her grand jury conduct criticized by federal judges, and her ethics questioned by professional bodies, the Senate’s affirmative constitutional duty to provide advice and consent on executive nominations requires scrutiny of this nomination that is public, thorough, and unsparing. Such an examination is essential to the integrity of the Department of Justice and the broader rule of law.
We respectfully urge the Committee to hold a full public hearing before any vote is considered. Anything less would signal a retreat from the standards that have protected the Justice Department from politicization for generations.
Respectfully,
Steven Cash
Executive Director
The Steady State