The ongoing legal battles following President Trump’s second term underscore a significant conflict between the Executive Branch and lower federal courts. The Supreme Court has stepped in on multiple occasions, reflecting an ongoing struggle for authority. In recent developments, the Court must now address the invalidation of acting U.S. attorneys Alina Habba and Lindsey Halligan by lower courts that have resisted recognizing Trump’s appointments.
The historical tradition known as the blue slip allows home-state senators to veto appointments of U.S. attorneys. This longstanding practice gives senators considerable power over nominees, leading to situations where partisan politics can obstruct federal appointments. In this case, New Jersey’s Cory Booker and Andy Kim, along with Virginia’s Tim Kaine and Mark Warner, have blocked Habba and Halligan’s nominations, thereby limiting the president’s appointments.
Attorney General Pam Bondi appointed Habba and Halligan on 120-day interim contracts, permitted under 28 U.S.C. § 546. However, after those terms expire, the argument goes that only district judges have the authority to make subsequent appointments, thus hamstringing the Executive Branch’s ability to place allies in critical roles. This quagmire risks allowing left-leaning judges to install U.S. attorneys who would not align with the president’s agenda.
The statute allowing 120-day appointments has existed since 1986, yet a South Carolina judge invalidated Halligan’s appointment based on a perceived lack of experience and other irrelevant considerations. The reasoning presented by Judge Cameron Currie raises important questions. The Appointments Clause clearly vests the appointment power with the president, and the Court has previously protected that authority, suggesting that denying it now undermines constitutional principles.
The ruling to invalidate both Habba’s and Halligan’s appointments appears to position district courts as supreme in confirming federal officers, contrary to the intent of the separation of powers. The implications of such a ruling extend far beyond Trump’s term, as it could limit future presidents from making necessary executive appointments.
Now, with a Third Circuit panel ruling against Habba, the issue is primed for Supreme Court review. The Court’s intervention could clarify the authority of attorneys general to make successive 120-day appointments or reaffirm the separation of powers by restoring the appointment power to the Executive Branch.
The justices have a critical role in upholding the constitutional balance, especially as they have intervened previously to safeguard presidential powers against judicial overreach. By intervening in this matter, the Supreme Court can ensure that U.S. attorneys serve under the authority of the president rather than being beholden to district courts. As history shows, a strong judiciary is essential, but it must not encroach upon the defined powers of the presidency itself. Addressing this imbalance is crucial for maintaining the integrity of the Executive Branch and fidelity to the Constitution.
"*" indicates required fields
