Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche has made a significant move in the ongoing battles over the appointment of U.S. Attorneys. He swiftly dismissed James Hundley, a litigator selected by Virginia judges to serve as the Interim U.S. Attorney, further complicating an already contentious issue.
This decision follows a series of legal clashes that began with the dismissal of criminal cases against former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James by Judge Cameron McGowan Currie. Currie, a judge appointed by President Bill Clinton, ruled not only to discard those cases but also deemed Lindsey Halligan’s appointment as U.S. Attorney invalid.
In an interesting twist, Pam Bondi, a prominent figure in the legal community, intervened by retroactively designating Halligan as a “special attorney.” This role allowed Halligan to continue legal proceedings, even amidst the legal upheaval, though it did not satisfy the requirements of the U.S. Attorney position as outlined by federal law. Judge Currie’s ruling clarified that despite Halligan’s new title, she was unable to serve as the Interim U.S. Attorney.
As a result, Halligan eventually stepped down, leading to a vacancy that the judges in Virginia sought to fill. Enter James Hundley, a veteran litigator with over 35 years of experience. However, Blanche’s decisive action put an abrupt end to Hundley’s short-lived appointment, emphasizing his stance on who rightfully holds the power to appoint U.S. Attorneys—an authority that lies with the President, not local judges.
Expressing his frustration publicly, Blanche tweeted, “Here we go again. EDVA judges do not pick our US Attorney. POTUS does. James Hundley, you’re fired!” His remarks underscore a growing pattern where deputy attorneys general are willing to challenge the decisions of judges regarding U.S. Attorney appointments, citing the constitutional authority granted to the President.
Earlier in the month, Blanche had also dismissed Donald Kinsella, another U.S. Attorney appointed by judges in New York. His consistent approach reflects a clear commitment to asserting federal authority over judicial decisions in this realm.
This back-and-forth over U.S. Attorney positions reveals a critical tension between judicial authority and executive power. Critics might argue about the implications of such decisions, while supporters insist on the necessity of maintaining a clear hierarchy in legal appointments.
As these developments unfold, the precedent being set raises essential questions about the balance of power between branches of government. Authors of constitutional law and political history may wish to take a closer look at how this evolving dynamic could influence future appointments and the broader landscape of federal legal administration. Blanche’s actions signal a readiness to reshape the landscape for U.S. Attorneys, and observers will be keen to see how this plays out in other jurisdictions moving forward.
"*" indicates required fields
