The Eastern District of Virginia judges tried to name their own interim U.S. attorney this week, and the Justice Department moved quickly to undo it. The court installed veteran litigator James Hundley after Lindsey Halligan left the post, but DOJ officials said that process crosses a constitutional line and fired the pick. The clash spotlights a legal tangle over who gets to choose top federal prosecutors and what happens when judges push into the executive branch’s role.
The court’s action came after a judge found Halligan’s appointment unlawful, leading to her departure in January. With the vacancy, EDVA judges stepped in and named Hundley as an interim U.S. attorney to keep the office functioning. That move set off an immediate reaction from the Biden Justice Department, which signaled that it would not accept a judicial appointment where the president’s nominee or a proper executive designation should apply.
This is not an isolated flap. Federal judges in New Jersey, Nevada and California reached similar conclusions in recent months that certain interim appointments violated the law, and those rulings removed several U.S. attorneys from their posts. The pattern produced a chain reaction: courts ruling appointments unlawful, judges trying to fill gaps, and the executive branch asserting its constitutional prerogative. The result is messy and politically charged.
The Eastern District’s decision to post a vacancy and even solicit applications online rubbed many the wrong way. The judges publicly asked for candidates and instructed court staff to list the opening in regional papers, which raised eyebrows about judicial neutrality and appropriate process. For Republicans and many defenders of separation of powers, that step looked like an effort to grab authority the Constitution assigns to the president and the Department of Justice.
When judges act as if they can permanently decide who serves as a U.S. attorney, it warps accountability. U.S. attorneys prosecute federal crimes and make choices that can have enormous political and legal consequences. Those roles answer to the executive branch so voters can hold elected leaders responsible, not to an unelected panel of judges who may have different incentives and priorities.
The Justice Department’s swift response reflected that belief. Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche reposted the development and , “Here we go again. EDVA judges do not pick our US Attorney. POTUS does. James Hundley, you’re fired!” The message was blunt and intended to make clear where appointment authority resides. That kind of direct intervention underlines the political stakes and the administration’s interest in preserving its selection power.
Statutory law does allow some temporary judicial appointments when the attorney general’s designation lapses, but the statute’s contours are narrow and the lines can be contested. Courts can, in limited circumstances, step in to ensure continuity, but those appointments are supposed to be stopgaps, not a long-term transfer of hiring power from president to bench. The recent sequence of rulings shows how quickly that balance can be tested and strained.
The whole episode feeds distrust and fuels partisan arguments about who decides which cases get priority. Critics fear judges could steer prosecutorial offices toward politically motivated agendas, while defenders of judicial action argue courts are filling a vacuum created by questionable appointments. Either way, the public sees judges and prosecutors locked in a tug of war, and that undermines confidence in neutral law enforcement.
For Republican observers, the takeaway is clear: the executive branch must defend its appointment authority and resist judicial encroachment. Letting courts pick U.S. attorneys sets a dangerous precedent where unelected judges could shape enforcement priorities. The better route is firm adherence to the Constitution and statutes so that elected officials, not judges, remain accountable for appointing top prosecutors.
The EDVA episode will likely keep drawing attention as other challenges and appeals work their way through the system. For now, the Justice Department’s move to rescind the court’s pick of Hundley underscores that appointments matter, and that who names a U.S. attorney can determine how federal power is used.
