Listen to the article
Trump’s Constitutional Authority to Fire U.S. Attorneys Sparks Legal Dispute
President Donald Trump has the constitutional authority to remove U.S. attorneys, even those appointed by federal judges, according to former Justice Department official John Yoo. This assertion comes amid a growing constitutional dispute over who ultimately controls these key law enforcement positions.
The controversy intensified this week when Trump terminated Donald Kinsella just hours after federal judges in the Northern District of New York voted to install him. Kinsella was appointed to fill the vacancy left by Trump appointee John Sarcone, whose temporary term had expired.
“No matter how an executive officer is appointed, none of these positions under the Constitution have any specific way to remove the officers, and so the president can remove all officers in the executive branch, particularly all officers in the Justice Department,” said Yoo, a law professor at the University of California, Berkeley.
Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche announced the removal in a strongly worded social media post, declaring that judges “don’t pick” U.S. attorneys, further escalating the constitutional conflict.
The dispute centers on federal vacancy laws that govern the appointment of U.S. attorneys. Typically, these officials are nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate. When the Senate doesn’t act, presidents can install temporary U.S. attorneys for a limited period, usually 120 days. If that term expires without a Senate confirmation, federal law allows district court judges to appoint a replacement to ensure continuity in the office.
Trump has faced significant challenges securing Senate confirmations for his U.S. attorney nominees, particularly in Democratic-leaning states. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer has explicitly ruled out approving any of Trump’s nominees in New York. Following Kinsella’s dismissal, Schumer criticized the president, claiming Trump wanted an unqualified “political loyalist” in office.
“Everyone knows Trump only cares about one quality in a U.S. Attorney: complete political subservience,” Schumer stated.
The Trump administration has struggled with similar situations across multiple jurisdictions. In New Jersey, the president quickly fired a court-appointed U.S. attorney after a lower court found that acting U.S. Attorney Alina Habba’s temporary term had expired—a decision later upheld by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
In the Eastern District of Virginia, the top prosecutor position remains contested as the Department of Justice appeals a judge’s decision to disqualify Lindsey Halligan. Halligan had brought high-profile indictments against New York Attorney General Letitia James and former FBI Director James Comey before a judge tossed those cases, ruling she was improperly appointed.
The Trump administration has utilized various legal mechanisms to install officials like Sarcone, Habba, and Halligan. In court filings, the DOJ has argued that judges who disqualified these appointees misinterpreted the law.
“It is important that a DOJ component is overseen by someone who has the support of the Executive Branch, and that a U.S. Attorney’s Office can continue to function even when there is no Senate-confirmed or interim U.S. Attorney,” DOJ attorneys wrote in court papers concerning Habba’s case.
Yoo acknowledged that courts were correct to enforce statutory time constraints on acting and interim tenures, but emphasized that the president retains sole removal power under Article II of the Constitution.
“Otherwise you could have U.S. attorneys who are enforcing federal law differently than the president would, and it’s the president who all of us in the country elect, and to whom the president is accountable,” Yoo explained.
The Justice Department has not yet elevated any of these cases to the Supreme Court. The case involving Habba has progressed furthest through the appeals process, though the DOJ has not indicated whether it plans to pursue a Supreme Court appeal.
This ongoing tension highlights the delicate balance between judicial appointments, presidential authority, and the constitutional limits of each branch’s power in the federal justice system.
Fact Checker
Verify the accuracy of this article using The Disinformation Commission analysis and real-time sources.
12 Comments
The legal and constitutional aspects of this case are certainly worth exploring further. The president’s authority to remove U.S. attorneys seems to be in tension with the judiciary’s role in appointing them. This could set an important precedent, so it’s crucial that the process is handled with care and attention to the principles of the Constitution.
I agree, this is a delicate situation that requires a nuanced legal analysis. The independence of the justice system must be preserved, regardless of the political affiliations of those involved. A thoughtful, non-partisan approach will be essential.
I’m curious to hear more from legal scholars on the nuances of this case. The president’s constitutional powers regarding U.S. attorneys seem to be in tension with the judiciary’s role in appointing them. This could set an important precedent depending on how it’s resolved.
Absolutely. The legal arguments and reasoning from both sides will be crucial in determining the appropriate boundaries and procedures going forward. A well-reasoned decision that upholds democratic principles would be ideal.
This is a complex legal and constitutional issue. While the president may have the authority to remove U.S. attorneys, the role of the judiciary in this process is not clear-cut. It will be interesting to see how this conflict plays out and whether there are any precedents that can help guide the resolution.
I agree, the separation of powers between the executive and judicial branches is a delicate balance that is being tested here. The legal experts will need to thoroughly examine the Constitution and relevant case law to determine the proper procedures.
The removal of a U.S. attorney appointed by federal judges is certainly a concerning development. It’s important that the executive branch and the judiciary work together to ensure the independence and integrity of the justice system, rather than engaging in a political power struggle.
I agree, the independence of the justice system is paramount. Both branches need to find a way to resolve this dispute amicably and in accordance with the Constitution, without undermining public trust in the legal process.
The removal of a U.S. attorney appointed by federal judges does seem to raise some constitutional questions. It will be important for all parties to act within the bounds of the law and avoid overstepping their authority, regardless of their political affiliations.
Well said. Upholding the rule of law and the integrity of the justice system should be the top priority, not political maneuvering.
This seems like a complex issue without a clear-cut answer. While the president may have the constitutional authority to remove U.S. attorneys, the involvement of the judiciary in the appointment process raises questions about the appropriate balance of power. Careful legal analysis will be needed to navigate this situation effectively.
Well said. The separation of powers and the checks and balances built into the system are being tested here. It will be important for all parties to approach this with a commitment to upholding the rule of law, rather than political motivations.