Lindsey Halligan, appointed by President Donald Trump as interim U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, is stepping down after just four months in the position.

Attorney General Pam Bondi announced Halligan’s departure on social media Tuesday night, following federal court rulings that deemed her appointment unlawful and an order from a judge to cease using the U.S. attorney title or face disciplinary action.

A spokesperson for the U.S. attorney’s office in the Eastern District of Virginia declined to comment on the matter when contacted by ABC News earlier Tuesday.

Initial Appointment and Legal Challenges

Halligan, a former White House aide, was named interim U.S. attorney in September by Trump, a decision that quickly raised eyebrows in legal circles, ABC News reported.

During her brief tenure, she secured indictments against prominent figures, including former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James.

Those indictments, however, were dismissed in November when U.S. District Judge Cameron McGowan Currie ruled that Halligan’s appointment was improper, lacking Senate confirmation or judicial backing.

Court Orders and Growing Controversy

The legal scrutiny intensified this month when U.S. District Judge David Novak ordered Halligan to explain her continued use of the U.S. attorney title despite the earlier ruling.

On Tuesday, Judge Novak issued a stern warning that her persistence in using the title defied a binding court order and could result in disciplinary proceedings.

The Eastern District of Virginia has since posted a job opening to fill the vacancy created by Halligan’s contested appointment.

Justice Department’s Response Sparks Debate

The situation has ignited a broader discussion about executive authority and the judiciary’s role in overseeing federal appointments.

Bondi stood by Halligan in her social media statement, saying, “The circumstances that led to this outcome are deeply misguided.”

While Bondi’s support is understandable, one has to wonder if the Department of Justice miscalculated by brushing off federal judges who don’t take kindly to being ignored.

Judicial Criticism and Systemic Concerns

Judge Novak pulled no punches, stating, “The Court finds it inconceivable that the Department of Justice, which holds a duty to faithfully execute the laws of the United States even those with which it may have disagreement would repeatedly ignore court orders, while simultaneously prosecuting citizens for breaking the law.”

If the DOJ gets to pick and choose which rulings to follow, as Novak cautions, what’s to stop ordinary citizens from following suit? This isn’t just a petty dispute; it’s a warning shot about the integrity of our legal system.

Halligan’s departure might end this episode, but the unresolved tension over presidential appointment powers suggests we’re far from the last word on this—expect more courtroom battles ahead.