The Trump administration fired a federally appointed U.S. attorney within hours of his judicial appointment, igniting a constitutional showdown that exposes a deep fracture between executive power and judicial independence.
Story Snapshot
- Federal judges in New York appointed Donald T. Kinsella as U.S. attorney after ruling the Trump administration’s interim appointee served unlawfully
- Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche fired Kinsella hours later via social media, declaring that judges lack constitutional authority to appoint prosecutors
- The conflict mirrors similar clashes in at least five federal districts, suggesting a coordinated administration strategy to bypass Senate confirmation
- At stake is whether judges retain statutory authority to fill prosecutorial vacancies when the president’s interim appointees exceed legal time limits
- The dispute affects prosecutorial legitimacy nationwide, with criminal cases potentially invalidated if prosecutors are found to serve unlawfully
When Judges and Prosecutors Collide
Federal judges in New York’s Northern District made a rare move Wednesday, appointing former prosecutor Donald T. Kinsella as U.S. attorney after determining the Trump administration’s interim choice operated outside legal boundaries. The judicial panel acted after John Sarcone, a former Trump campaign attorney serving as interim U.S. attorney, exceeded the 120-day statutory limit for temporary appointments. Rather than submit a permanent nominee to the Senate, Attorney General Pam Bondi attempted a workaround, reassigning Sarcone as first assistant while granting him special prosecutorial powers to continue leading the office.
U.S. District Judge Lorna Schofield rejected this maneuver in January, ruling Sarcone violated federal vacancy laws. She barred him from overseeing a politically charged investigation into New York Attorney General Letitia James. The judges then exercised their statutory authority to appoint Kinsella. Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche responded within hours on social media, announcing Kinsella’s termination with the declaration that judges cannot pick U.S. attorneys under Article II of the Constitution.
The Pattern Across Five Districts
This confrontation is not isolated. Similar conflicts erupted in New Jersey, where judges appointed career prosecutor Desiree Leigh Grace after Trump’s interim appointee, his former personal attorney Alina Habba, reached her 120-day limit. The Justice Department fired Grace immediately. Attorney General Bondi posted that the department does not tolerate rogue judges threatening the president’s core Article II powers. Blanche added that Alina represented the president’s choice and no partisan bench could override that decision.
In Virginia, a federal judge dismissed criminal indictments against Letitia James and former FBI Director James Comey, finding that interim U.S. Attorney Lindsey Halligan served unlawfully. Halligan continued using the United States Attorney title in court filings despite the ruling, prompting judicial warnings about potential discipline for false statements. She subsequently departed the Justice Department. These episodes across New York, New Jersey, Virginia, California, and Nevada reveal a systematic administration approach rather than random legal disputes.
The Constitutional Question That Matters
The administration argues Article II grants the president exclusive appointment power, making judicial involvement constitutional overreach. This position challenges longstanding practice. Federal law explicitly authorizes district judges to appoint U.S. attorneys when interim appointments expire, and the Senate has not confirmed a replacement within 120 days. Previous administrations accepted this judicial authority as a legitimate congressional structuring of executive offices. The Trump administration now tests whether statutory limits on executive power can withstand presidential assertion of inherent constitutional authority.
The government appealed Judge Schofield’s ruling and requested a stay pending appellate review. This appeal will likely determine whether the administration can continue circumventing Senate confirmation through creative reassignments or whether judges retain appointment power when statutory deadlines pass. The outcome affects more than personnel disputes. It defines whether congressional limits on temporary executive appointments have teeth or exist merely as suggestions the president can ignore through bureaucratic maneuvering.
What Happens When Nobody Knows Who Is In Charge
Multiple U.S. attorney offices now operate under disputed leadership. The Northern District of New York and the District of New Jersey face competing claims of authority, creating legal uncertainty about whether their prosecutors can legitimately bring cases. Criminal defendants may challenge indictments on grounds that prosecutors lacked lawful authority. Career prosecutors caught between judicial appointments and executive firings face impossible loyalty conflicts. Investigations into politically sensitive targets like Letitia James remain frozen while courts sort out who holds legitimate prosecutorial power.
The Senate’s confirmation role also hangs in the balance. If the administration’s position prevails, the statutory 120-day limit becomes meaningless. The president could maintain indefinite control over prosecutorial offices through interim appointments and creative reassignments, eliminating practical Senate oversight. This concentration of appointment power in the executive branch would fundamentally alter the constitutional balance that previous administrations of both parties respected. The administration frames this as defending presidential prerogatives against judicial interference. The pattern suggests something different: a coordinated strategy to consolidate prosecutorial control without the consensus-building that Senate confirmation requires.
Sources:
Former Trump attorney Alina Habba passed over for permanent US attorney position – ABC News
