The Legal Battles Over Trump’s Prosecutor Appointments Are Escalating

The Trump administration is engaged in a power struggle with the nation’s judiciary over who can determine the top federal prosecutors in each region, leading to confusion over who’s in charge of regional offices across the country.

At least six times, judges have disqualified politically appointed interim U.S. attorneys after their terms have expired. But the Department of Justice has left them in place by giving them different titles.

Then, when judges exercise their legal authority to appoint replacements from within the ranks of U.S. attorneys’ offices, DOJ officials quickly fire these longtime career employees.

“It’s crazy. It doesn’t make any sense,” Robert Kugler, a retired New Jersey federal judge, said about the increasingly antagonistic quarrel over appointments.

The second Trump administration has been defined by the White House’s embrace of right-wing legal figures and its adoption of the unitary executive theory of presidential power. The combination has resulted in loyalist appointments and a refusal to buckle when those appointments are questioned.

The rising tension was made most apparent in a nasty spat on Monday in New Jersey, where a judge ejected a prosecutor from his courtroom and ordered officials to soon testify over “the current structure and leadership” of the district office and whether former interim U.S. Attorney Alina Habba continues to play a role, according to The New York Times.

On Tuesday, Brad Schimel’s term as interim U.S. attorney in the Eastern District of Wisconsin ran out after federal judges refused to extend his tenure. The Trump administration has not announced a replacement. Schimel is still listed as the district’s U.S. attorney, even though he hasn’t received the Senate confirmation required to hold the title.

Kugler and other former federal judges fear that this kind of political jockeying could affect not just the work, but also the way Americans see the justice system.

“It’s not a good thing in the society for people to lose confidence in the judicial system,” Kugler said. “It’s self-executing. It only works because people accept the results. If you start tearing that down, there’s a real danger there.”

By law, the president nominates a U.S. attorney to oversee each of the nation’s 93 regional offices in federal court districts. While waiting for the Senate to confirm that person, the attorney general can appoint an “interim” U.S. attorney for 120 days. If that temporary prosecutor’s clock runs out, the local district court chooses a prosecutor who can serve until a permanent candidate makes it past the Senate. And if that lead position ever becomes vacant, the second-highest-ranking person in the office can serve automatically as the “acting” U.S. attorney — again, for a limited amount of time.

The appointment process was less antagonistic during President Donald Trump’s first term, when his administration tapped Craig Carpenito, a white-collar defense lawyer who’d worked on high-profile political cases, to lead the New Jersey office. District judges made it official three months later when his temporary term ran out.

The process led to an all-out fight in 2025 when judges declined to appoint the second Trump administration’s pick to lead the New Jersey office when her time ran out: Habba, a highly partisan former Trump personal defense lawyer who levied criminal charges against Democratic lawmakers who protested a privately-run deportation jail.

Judges selected Desiree Grace, a career prosecutor who’d been serving as the office’s No. 2, to lead the office instead. But Attorney General Pam Bondi quickly fired her and gave Habba Grace’s old spot, making Habba the de facto leader of the office.

“Desiree Grace did not ask to do it. She was approached by the court. She had to say yes. She was a very well respected prosecutor. Everybody liked her. When her name was mentioned, everybody said she’s perfect for the job,” Kugler told NOTUS. “I don’t think anybody contemplated what was going to happen next.”

That chair shuffling game was once again at play in the Eastern District of Virginia last month. Lindsey Halligan, another MAGA lawyer, ran into problems in November when a federal judge said she had “no lawful authority” to prosecute former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James.

Three months later, judges picked her replacement. But just hours after Chief Judge M. Hannah Lauck there administered the oath to longtime litigator James Hundley to swear him in as interim U.S. attorney, DOJ brass slammed the cancel button.

“Here we go again. EDVA judges do not pick our US Attorney. POTUS does. James Hundley, you’re fired!” tweeted Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche.

Similar fights have played out across the country. In the Northern District of New York, a federal judge squashed two subpoenas in January and forbade the Trump administration-selected head prosecutor, John Sarcone, from being involved. But when judges there on Feb. 11 appointed Donald Kinsella, a former federal prosecutor with half a century of experience, Blanche once again dropped the hammer.

“Judges don’t pick U.S. Attorneys, @POTUS does. See Article II of our Constitution. You are fired, Donald Kinsella,” Blanche tweeted later that night.

Liam O’Grady, a retired federal judge in Virginia, said Blanche is misreading the law.

“My response to that is, read the entire Article II. He leaves off the appointments clause,” O’Grady said, noting that the U.S. Constitution makes clear that “Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers … in the courts of law.”

Congress has made law that specifically says a district court “may appoint a United States attorney to serve until the vacancy is filled.”

In the Central District of California, a federal judge in October ruled that Bill Essayli was “unlawfully serving” as the top prosecutor there. Trump’s DOJ resorted to using the same tactic it’s used nearly half a dozen times now. Attorney General Pam Bondi appointed him as an interim U.S. attorney in March 2025, and two days before his 120-day term was up, she made him the No. 2 at that office “effective upon his resignation.”

It was a way to exploit a novel reading of the 1998 Federal Vacancies Reform Act, which automatically elevates the first assistant U.S. attorney — typically a career prosecutor — into the leading role. The law was meant to ensure continuity and authority for an important leadership position that oversees government lawsuits and criminal investigations.

As a result, the California district that encompasses Los Angeles doesn’t have a Senate-approved or even court-blessed U.S. attorney. Instead, the office’s website features Essayli’s biography and picture on a page titled “Meet The First Assistant U.S. Attorney.” And he’s listed as such in court documents.

In one indictment, Essayli’s name is listed under Blanche’s — a potential ploy to avoid legal challenges over the DOJ’s ability to criminally indict people without proper authority.

U.S. Judge Zahid Quraishi, who kicked a federal prosecutor out of his New Jersey courtroom this week for repeatedly speaking out of turn, is now going to examine the DOJ’s unusual decision to install what’s been deemed a “triumvirate” consisting of Philip Lamparello, Jordan Fox, and Ari Fontecchio to lead the office.

But, as with many of Trump’s constitutional battles, this one seems headed for the Supreme Court.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals is now considering a Nevada federal judge’s decision in September to disqualify Sigal Chattah, who was the Trump-appointed acting U.S. attorney and is now listed as the office’s No. 2 while another Trump nominee is considered. That appellate court could look to the way the 3rd Circuit upheld a trial judge’s disqualification of Habba and made clear that the assistant-turned-leader workaround doesn’t pass muster.

“Only the first assistant in place at the time the vacancy arises automatically assumes the functions and duties of the office” under the Federal Vacancies Reform Act, the 3rd Circuit panel wrote in December.

However, O’Grady thinks the Supreme Court might influence this power struggle without considering these cases directly by how it decides the fate of a Federal Reserve governor who is challenging Trump’s decision to fire her. The high court in January appeared uneasy with the idea that the president could unilaterally remove Lisa Cook from the independent central bank.

O’Grady warned that conservative justices could hand the White House unquestionable power to appoint federal officials — something the DOJ would read as a license to dig in its heels in these ongoing fights.

“If the executive has unbridled discretion to appoint whoever they want as the interim attorney, then all bets are off,” he said.