Trump faces major test over appointing US attorneys without Senate approval

This story raises questions about governance, accountability, and American values.

Source: Washington Examiner
1 min read
Why This Matters

A lot of Washington fights are really just ego fights dressed up in Latin. This one is more concrete. The Fourth Circuit is taking up whether President Trump can install U.

New Republican Times Editorial Board

Trump faces major test over appointing US attorneys without Senate approval
Image via Washington Examiner

President Donald Trump’s power to install preferred federal prosecutors without Senate confirmation will face a major test Tuesday in a federal appeals court, while his administration is separately asking the Supreme Court to take up a related dispute that could carry nationwide consequences.

The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals will hear the Trump administration’s […]

How We See It

New Republican Times Editorial Board

A lot of Washington fights are really just ego fights dressed up in Latin. This one is more concrete. The Fourth Circuit is taking up whether President Trump can install U.S. attorneys without waiting on Senate confirmation, and the administration is also nudging the Supreme Court to step into a related mess that could set a national rule. That should tell you something right away: the usual slow-walk and sabotage around key prosecutor jobs is not a small, inside-baseball problem. It changes how the federal government functions.

Here’s the part people gloss over: U.S. attorneys are not ceremonial. They decide which cases get brought, which get dropped, and whether a federal office is aggressive or asleep at the wheel. Leaving those seats empty for months because the Senate wants leverage is a great way to get exactly what we’ve seen in recent years, selective enforcement and drift. A president is elected to run the executive branch, not to beg permission from senators who would rather keep agencies leaderless than let the other party govern.

Of course there’s a real question underneath the politics. The Senate has a confirmation role for a reason, and nobody wants a loophole that turns “temporary” into permanent by clever timing. But that cuts both ways. If the courts decide the Senate can effectively bottle up prosecutor appointments indefinitely, we’re not defending checks and balances. We’re rewarding obstruction as a governing strategy. If “advise and consent” becomes “delay and disable,” the system breaks.

The test for the courts should be basic: can the executive fill essential law-enforcement posts so the law gets enforced consistently, while still respecting clear limits Congress actually wrote? If the Senate wants more control, it can do its job and vote, up or down. Dragging everything into litigation because the political class can’t act like adults is how we end up with the judiciary running personnel policy. Fill the seats, enforce the law, and stop treating vacancies like a weapon..

Commentary written with AI assistance by the New Republican Times Editorial Board.