Supreme Court’s Intervention Needed for White House Appointments

During President Trump’s second term, there were approximately 24 instances where the Supreme Court stepped in due to lower courts not acknowledging his presidency. Now, the justices are faced with a similar situation after a lower court invalidated the interim appointments of Alina Haba for New Jersey and Lindsey Harrigan for Virginia.

There’s a longstanding Senate tradition known as blue slips, which lets local senators veto federal appointments like marshals and U.S. attorneys. Candidates need a blue slip from their home state senator to proceed. This power isn’t something senators are willing to give up, leaving the current administration to navigate the fallout. In New Jersey, Democratic Senators Cory Booker and Andy Kim have blocked Haba’s nomination as federal prosecutor, while in Virginia, Senators Tim Kaine and Mark Warner are doing the same with Harrigan. Consequently, Attorney General Pam Bondi appointed both Haba and Harrigan for a temporary 120-day term. Harrigan took over from an interim prosecutor, Eric Siebert, who resigned just before his term was up.

Once the 120 days were up, critics argued that Bondi could only appoint district judges and that the executive branch had no authority after this period. This interpretation would effectively enable senators to obstruct Trump’s nominees, allowing predominantly left-leaning judges in blue states to appoint U.S. attorneys aligned with their views, leaving the executive branch to accept this situation, much like with the blue slip process.

The 120-day rule has been around since 1986, and under Presidents Clinton and Bush, attorneys general operated under similar conditions. However, when South Carolina Judge Cameron Curry invalidated Harrigan’s appointment, this historical context didn’t sway the lawmakers. Notably, Harrigan had been involved in indicting high-profile figures. Despite his arguments, Curry’s criticisms seemed more subjective, focusing on Harrigan’s proficiency as a prosecutor rather than legal grounds.

Trump Faces Obstructions

Currently, the charges against Harrigan are not valid. Curry expressed skepticism over Harrigan’s background, hinting that even extensive experience wouldn’t suffice. His analysis suggested that the constitutional violations were the key issue, separate from any social media activity by Trump demanding faster action from Bondi.

The Appointments Clause grants the President the authority to appoint key officials with Senate advice and consent. For U.S. attorneys, the president makes nominations that the Senate must confirm. The Attorney General can make temporary appointments lasting up to 120 days; after which, district courts are authorized to fill vacancies. Yet, Judge Curry’s ruling nullified Haba and Harrigan’s appointments, which complicates future appointments by any president’s attorney general in that district.

Opposition from the Judiciary

The current legal landscape is complicated by judges opposing Trump’s initiatives. Recently, a Third Circuit panel declared Haba’s appointment invalid, and although Harrigan’s case is still pending in the Fourth Circuit, the Supreme Court might take on both matters together. Notably, the 5th Circuit is the only circuit with a Republican senator in every state, hinting at a potential priority shift for future appointments.

The simplest way for the Supreme Court to correct the lower courts’ rulings might be to affirm that Section 546 permits appointments beyond 120 days. Alternatively, they could argue that limiting appointment rights for executive officials violates the principle of separation of powers.

This issue has become urgent, particularly with the increasing critiques from Democratic politicians and left-leaning media. Historically, the Supreme Court has played a crucial role in blocking undue interference from lower courts, allowing Trump to optimally conduct his responsibilities.

Bondi and her legal team have achieved a significant victory rate in the Supreme Court, and reinstating Haba and Harrigan is essential to maintain separation of powers. The justices must act to ensure that U.S. lawyers remain accountable to the president rather than serving the interests of district courts.