Listen to the article
Justice Department Fires Judge-Appointed Prosecutor in Latest Power Struggle
In a dramatic showdown over federal prosecutorial appointments, the Justice Department swiftly terminated James Hundley on Friday, just hours after federal judges unanimously selected him to serve as interim U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia. The firing represents the latest clash between the judiciary and executive branch over who holds authority to appoint powerful federal prosecutors.
Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche announced the dismissal bluntly on social media, writing: “EDVA judges do not pick our US Attorney. POTUS does. James Hundley, you’re fired!” The public declaration underscored the Trump administration’s firm stance that appointment power rests exclusively with the executive branch, despite legal provisions suggesting otherwise.
Hundley, a seasoned attorney with over 30 years of experience handling both criminal and civil cases, had been chosen by judges to replace former Trump lawyer Lindsey Halligan. As of Friday evening, Hundley had not responded to requests for comment about his abrupt dismissal.
The Eastern District of Virginia, often referred to as the “Rocket Docket” for its efficiency in processing cases, has been engulfed in turmoil since September. The office’s instability began with the resignation of veteran prosecutor Erik Siebert, who reportedly left amid pressure from the Trump administration to pursue cases against two high-profile Trump critics: former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James.
Siebert’s departure created a vacancy that was quickly filled by Halligan, a White House aide who subsequently secured indictments against both Comey and James. However, her appointment faced legal scrutiny, with a federal judge later ruling that she had been unlawfully appointed to the position. This judicial determination led to the dismissal of the cases against Comey and James, though the Justice Department has appealed the decision.
Halligan ultimately resigned last month after district judges continued to question the legitimacy of her appointment. This set the stage for the judges’ selection of Hundley, which was immediately rejected by the Justice Department.
The legal framework governing U.S. Attorney appointments allows for multiple pathways to fill these crucial positions. Typically, these top federal prosecutors require Senate confirmation, but the law does permit the Attorney General to make temporary appointments for limited periods. However, federal statute also provides that “the district court for a district in which the office of United States attorney is vacant may appoint a United States attorney to serve until the vacancy is filled.”
This provision has become the focal point of tension between the judiciary and the Trump administration, which maintains that only the president holds the constitutional authority to appoint U.S. Attorneys, regardless of statutory language.
The Virginia situation mirrors a similar incident just last week in northern New York, where a judge-appointed U.S. Attorney was fired by the Justice Department within 24 hours of taking the position. In that case, the judges had appointed a lawyer after declining to extend the term of the Trump administration’s pick, John Sarcone, whose 120-day temporary appointment had expired.
These conflicts highlight broader tensions within the Justice Department under the current administration and raise significant questions about prosecutorial independence. U.S. Attorneys traditionally operate with considerable autonomy while adhering to departmental policies and priorities.
Legal experts note that these appointment disputes could eventually reach the Supreme Court, as they involve fundamental questions about the separation of powers and the proper interpretation of federal statutes governing the appointment of key law enforcement officials.
Fact Checker
Verify the accuracy of this article using The Disinformation Commission analysis and real-time sources.
10 Comments
As a longtime federal prosecutor, I’m troubled by the DOJ’s heavy-handed dismissal of the court-appointed interim US Attorney. This seems to undermine the checks and balances in the system.
The abrupt firing of a judge-appointed prosecutor raises some concerning questions about executive overreach. Transparency and accountability are crucial to upholding the rule of law.
I agree, this appears to be a worrying disregard for the judiciary’s role in the process. The public deserves a clear explanation from the DOJ.
The abrupt firing of the judge-selected US Attorney in Virginia is an alarming power play by the executive branch. This seems to undermine the separation of powers and merit-based system for such appointments.
This looks like another episode in the ongoing battle over control of federal prosecutions. The administration’s unilateral action here is bound to raise eyebrows and invite legal challenges.
Absolutely. The dismissal of a court-appointed official sets a troubling precedent that could erode the independence of the DOJ.
The Justice Department’s swift termination of the judge-selected prosecutor is a concerning display of executive power. I hope there is a full and transparent explanation provided to the public.
Interesting development in the tug-of-war between the executive and judicial branches. The Eastern District of Virginia is an important jurisdiction, so the outcome here could set an important precedent.
This seems like another power struggle between branches of government over who controls federal prosecutors. It’ll be interesting to see how this plays out and if the judiciary ultimately prevails in its role of appointing interim US Attorneys.
Hmm, the Trump administration seems intent on asserting its authority over federal prosecutor appointments, even when it conflicts with legal precedent. This could have significant implications for the independence of the DOJ.