The district judges in New Jersey are thinking about replacing @realdonaldtrump’s chosen US Attorney—@USAttyHabba—with someone the judges choose under a statute purporting to give them that power. But if the judges attempt that move, it should fail. Here’s why. 1/
First the basics. Article II vests all executive power in the President. That includes the prosecution power of U.S. Attorneys. For @POTUS to properly exercise that power, he must be able to freely hire and fire all subordinates who wield it. 2/
As Chief Justice Taft—a former @POTUS himself—wrote in Myers: “The President, alone and unaided, could not execute the laws. He must execute them by the assistance of subordinates.” Again, that includes US Attorneys. 3/
Ok lets get to New Jersey. There is a statute that allows the Attorney General to appoint US Attorneys directly—appointments last 120 days. @AGPamBondi appointed @USAttyHabba under this provision. 4/
The same statute says if there is no senate-confirmed US Attorney after 120 days, then “the district court for such district may appoint a United States attorney to serve until the vacancy is filled.” 28 USC 546(d). Wait what? The judges pick their own prosecutor? 5/
I am not aware of a modern example of courts exercising this supposed power to install a US Attorney, but @realDonaldTrump could plainly remove any such person immediately pursuant to Article II. That issue would (or should) be 9-0 at the Supreme Court. 6/
But what about @USAttyHabba? @realdonaldtrump is entitled to keep her in office for as long as he wants. The simplest path would be for @AGPamBondi to appoint @USAttyHabba the “First Assistant United States Attorney” in New Jersey. Then, under a different statute (the Federal Vacancies Act), @USAttyHabba would again be Acting U.S. Attorney (now via her status as the "first assistant" to that role). 7/
The @thejusticedept knows this, as they recently did the same in the Northern District of New York @NDNYnews for John Sarcone—another US Attorney whom @AGPamBondi appointed and whom the Administration is entitled to keep. 8/
Or if @TheJusticeDept really wanted to underscore the point, @realdonaldtrump could remove the judges' selected US Attorney and @AGPamBondi could potentially reappoint @USAttyHabba under the same AG Appt statute used before. Nothing in the statute clearly precludes this. 9/
Bottom line: @POTUS has broad authority over @TheJusticeDept and who serves in it. That includes US Attorneys. There is this a clear legal path to keep @USAttyHabba in office if the Administration wants to take it. /fin
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Another emergency filing in the Supreme Court last night by @TheJusticeDept, this time because a district court has commandeered immigration enforcement in Los Angeles. There are multiple serious issues here, and emergency relief seems proper. 1/
To set the stage: ICE Agents need "reasonable suspicion" that a person is here illegally before they can stop the person for immigration-enforcement purposes. That is a low bar. Basically is it reasonable under the circumstances to suspect someone is an illegal alien? 2/
Here, the district court forbade ICE Agents working in greater Los Angeles from considering four extremely broad attributes in forming suspicions about potential illegal aliens. As @TheJusticeDept explains below. 3/
On the heels of DC attempting to disbar @JeffClarkUS, a dark money group has escalated further--filing bar complaints against little-known lawyers who defend the Administration in court. This is a frontal assault on the Executive Branch. It must be defeated at all costs. 1/
Lets set the stage. First, the subjects of the complaints are the political appointee who has my old job--Deputy Assistant AG for Federal Programs, in @TheJusticeDept parlance--and two career lawyers. These are not high profile people accustomed to harassment. 2/
Second, the complainant appears to be a random group funded by left-wing dark money. (The "Legal Accountability Center"; Orwell would be proud.) It is not a former client or current litigant. It's seemingly some activists paid to read X all day, then harass government lawyers based on public reporting. 3/
The @WSJopinion has an editorial today arguing three basic things: (1) Emil Bove is a poor judicial nominee, (2) his nomination will stop other judges from retiring, (3) other Trump nominees are better and will induce more retirements. I broadly disagree. 1/
First, as I have written elsewhere, Emil Bove is a strong nominee right down the fairway of @realdonaldtrump’s long track record of excellent appointments. He has strong credentials and is a senior official @TheJusticeDept in the Administration. Straightforward pick. 2/
What about @WSJopinion's objections? The main objection concerns a meeting in which Bove allegedly asked colleagues about defying a potential court order and did so using profane language. Lets unpack both claims. 3/
The President removed the Board Members of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting—the infamous funding vehicle for @NPR and @PBS. These Board Members—as other terminated federal officials have done—sued the President to hold onto their offices. But importantly, they lost.. 2/
Case closed, right? Wrong. Rather than accede to the court's ruling, the officials refused to leave. They continued to unlawfully commandeer their offices, sending more taxpayer dollars to @NPR and @PBS. 3/