Supreme Court Faces Challenge Over Interim U.S. Attorney Appointments Made by Trump Administration
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court is being called upon to address a dispute over the validity of interim U.S. attorney appointments made during former President Donald Trump’s administration, after lower courts invalidated the appointments of Alina Habba and Lindsey Halligan.
Habba was appointed as acting U.S. attorney for the District of New Jersey, and Halligan for the Eastern District of Virginia. Both appointments were made by then-Attorney General Pam Bondi under a statutory provision allowing 120-day interim terms. However, federal judges have ruled these appointments improper after the 120-day period expired, asserting that only district judges can make such appointments beyond that timeframe.
This legal conflict stems from the Senate’s longstanding “blue slip” tradition, which grants home-state senators significant influence over U.S. attorney nominations by allowing them to approve or block nominees. In New Jersey, Senators Cory Booker and Andy Kim did not return blue slips for Habba’s nomination, while in Virginia, Senators Tim Kaine and Mark Warner withheld approval for Halligan. As a result, the administration resorted to interim appointments.
The challenge to these appointments raises questions about the separation of powers and executive authority. Critics argue that the judicial rulings effectively allow senators and courts in certain states to control U.S. attorney appointments, potentially undermining the executive branch’s role.
Halligan, who replaced another interim prosecutor shortly before the expiration of the 120-day term, had secured indictments against New York Attorney General Letitia James and former FBI Director James Comey. However, those indictments have been invalidated following the court’s decision on her appointment.
The 120-day interim appointment provision has been part of federal law since 1986, and previous administrations, including those of Presidents Clinton and Bush, have used it without similar legal challenges. Despite this precedent, Judge Cameron Currie of South Carolina ruled against Halligan’s appointment, highlighting the ongoing legal and political tensions surrounding these cases.
The Supreme Court’s involvement is seen as crucial to resolving the dispute and clarifying the limits of executive power in appointing interim U.S. attorneys amid Senate opposition.
Leave a Reply