President Trump recently exercised what his supporters and many constitutional scholars say is clear executive authority to remove court-appointed U.S. attorneys, touching off a fight about who ultimately controls federal prosecutors and how vacancy laws interact with Article II powers.
Former Justice Department official John Yoo argues the Constitution gives the president broad removal power over executive officers, so the president can and should have the final say over who enforces federal law. Yoo warns that without that authority, U.S. attorneys could pursue enforcement priorities at odds with the elected president, undermining accountability.
“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 told Fox News Digital in an interview. That point anchors the Republican view here: the executive needs intact authority to manage Justice Department leadership and priorities.
This week President Trump terminated Donald Kinsella just hours after federal judges in the Northern District of New York voted to install him to fill a vacancy left by a Trump appointee whose temporary term had expired. Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche revealed the move in a fiery , declaring that judges “don’t pick” U.S. attorneys and signaling the DOJ will push back against court-made appointments.
FEDERAL JUDGE DISQUALIFIES US ATTORNEY, TOSSES SUBPOENAS TARGETING NY AG LETITIA JAMES
https://x.com/DAGToddBlanche/status/2021777972215062787?s=20
The clash hinges on a statutory provision that lets district courts appoint temporary U.S. attorneys when a presidential nominee hasn’t been confirmed and an acting official’s window has closed. DOJ officials contend that the judges’ power to step in was intended only as a stopgap, but courts have used that authority to avoid leaving an office vacant when the Senate stalls.
Yoo says both sides have legal points: the court appointments are a “quirk” of federal vacancy law, but that quirk does not strip the president of the removal power. “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,” he said.
That constitutional reading matters now because a number of Trump interim appointees in blue states have been disqualified by judges who rule a temporary term cannot be endlessly renewed. Courts in New York, California, Nevada, New Jersey and Virginia have pushed back on repeated interim terms and on appointments that exceeded the statutory timeline.
FORMER TRUMP LAWYER HALLIGAN DEFENDS US PROSECUTOR STATUS IN WAKE OF COMEY, JAMES DISMISSALS
Trump has struggled to get Senate confirmations in states where home-state senators block nominees, and the blue slip tradition has kept many of his picks from getting votes. That stalemate is precisely why judges have stepped in under the statute, creating a messy clash between the letter of the vacancy law and the president’s Article II authority.
DOJ lawyers argue the department must be overseen by someone aligned with the executive branch so enforcement remains consistent. “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 in Habba’s case.
Yoo emphasizes the Constitution is detailed about appointing officers but silent about removal, and historical practice supports presidential removal powers for subordinates. “It has elaborate procedures … about how you appoint them to office. It doesn’t actually discuss at all how you remove them from office,” Yoo said, adding that “Any subordinates who are carrying out federal law have to be accountable to him.”
Critics like Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer attacked Trump for the firings, calling them politically motivated. “Everyone knows Trump only cares about one quality in a U.S. Attorney — complete political subservience,” Schumer said, a line that Republican defenders reject as political theater and a misreading of the constitutional issue.
Several cases tied to these appointment fights are now in appeals, and the Justice Department has pushed back in courts to preserve what it sees as the president’s core authority. The dispute will keep moving through the legal system as Republicans press the point that the executive must be able to remove and replace prosecutors to enforce national priorities and preserve accountability in the Justice Department.
Darnell Thompkins is a Canadian-born American and conservative opinion writer who brings a unique perspective to political and cultural discussions. Passionate about traditional values and individual freedoms, Darnell’s commentary reflects his commitment to fostering meaningful dialogue. When he’s not writing, he enjoys watching hockey and celebrating the sport that connects his Canadian roots with his American journey.