Lindsey Halligan, serving as the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, encountered another challenging week, marked by legal rebukes and procedural missteps. The troubles began with a failed attempt to re-indict New York Attorney General Letitia James, marking the third unsuccessful effort under Halligan's oversight.

Further complications arose during the ongoing litigation related to former FBI Director James Comey. A significant critique came from Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly of the DC District Court, who criticized Halligan's office for its handling of evidence. The controversy centered on evidence obtained from Daniel Richman, Comey's associate, which was initially collected years prior without a subsequent warrant for its use in the current case.

In 2025, Halligan revisited the stored evidence, aiming to establish that Comey had lied to Congress in 2020. However, the absence of a new warrant prompted legal scrutiny and procedural criticism from the judiciary. Both Judge Kollar-Kotelly and Magistrate Judge William Fitzpatrick expressed astonishment at the oversight.

The situation escalated when Richman filed a motion under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 41(g) for the return of his property, arguing that his Fourth Amendment rights were violated by the retention and reuse of his data without proper authorization. The Department of Justice initially delayed its response, but under judicial pressure, Halligan and her deputy eventually addressed the court.

However, Halligan's response was criticized for lacking substantial defense of her office's actions, focusing instead on questioning Richman's motives. Judge Kollar-Kotelly dismissed this argument, ordering the destruction of the copies of Richman's data held by the government and highlighting the breach of protocol and disregard for constitutional rights.

This ruling preserved a single copy of the material with the district court, pending a proper warrant, hinting at the possibility for lawful reexamination of the evidence if handled correctly in the future.

Despite repeated setbacks, there was no indication from Halligan's office of a change in strategy or acknowledgment of the judicial critiques, continuing a pattern of legal challenges and procedural errors. This ongoing saga highlights significant issues within the U.S. Attorney's office for the Eastern District of Virginia under Halligan's interim appointment, raising questions about the future of her tenure and the cases she oversees.