The Justice Department fired James Hundley, a defense attorney selected by a panel of federal judges to serve as the interim U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, just hours after his appointment. Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche announced the move on X Friday evening.
Blanche did not mince words:
"Here we go again. EDVA judges do not pick our U.S. Attorney. POTUS does. James Hundley, you're fired!"
The firing marks the second time in a matter of days that the DOJ has moved swiftly to remove a judge-appointed interim U.S. Attorney. Last week, Blanche announced the firing of Donald Kinsella, an attorney selected by judges to serve as acting U.S. attorney for the Northern District of New York, just hours after that appointment was made.
According to the Washington Examiner, under federal law, district court judges may appoint an interim U.S. attorney when a prior interim appointee's 120-day term expires, and the Senate has not confirmed a replacement. It is a backstop provision, designed to keep offices running during vacancies.
But the president also retains the right to fire any court-appointed U.S. attorney. And that is exactly what this administration has done. Twice now, in rapid succession.
The pattern is unmistakable: the DOJ is not going to allow the judiciary to install prosecutors that the president did not choose. Whether or not the judges' selections are technically lawful, the executive branch is asserting its authority over who wields prosecutorial power in federal courtrooms.
The EDVA slot has been a flashpoint for months. Lindsey Halligan, a former personal attorney to Trump and the president's appointee to the position, secured indictments against former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James during her tenure. Both cases drew enormous attention.
In November, U.S. District Judge Cameron McGowan Currie ruled that Halligan was unlawfully appointed, dismissing the indictments against Comey and James. The DOJ has appealed that ruling.
Halligan's term expired in January. Virginia judges then announced they would seek a replacement and asked interested lawyers to apply by Feb. 10. That process produced Hundley, whose tenure lasted a matter of hours.
The backstop provision exists for administrative continuity. It was never designed as a mechanism for the judiciary to install its preferred prosecutors in politically sensitive districts while an administration is actively governing and actively contesting the previous appointment's validity in court.
The DOJ's appeal of the Currie ruling is still live. Halligan's appointment, the indictments she secured, and the legitimacy of the entire process remain unresolved legal questions. For a panel of judges to step in and seat a replacement while that appeal proceeds is, at best, premature. At worst, it is the judiciary attempting to dictate the composition of the executive branch's prosecutorial apparatus.
The Constitution does not give judges the power to choose who prosecutes federal cases. That authority belongs to the president, confirmed by the Senate. The interim appointment statute is a narrow exception, not an invitation for the bench to staff the DOJ.
Two firings in two weeks send a message that requires no interpretation. The administration is not going to tolerate an end-run around presidential authority over federal prosecutors, regardless of what procedural justification the courts offer.
Attorneys who were questioning the legality of Halligan's appointment now face a different reality: the administration is willing to use its firing authority just as aggressively as judges are willing to use their appointment authority. The difference is that the president's power to remove is not in legal dispute. The judges' power to install is.
The EDVA remains without a confirmed U.S. Attorney. The appeals process over Halligan's original appointment grinds forward. And the judiciary has now learned, twice, that selecting a name is not the same as seating a prosecutor.
The president picks his U.S. Attorneys. Federal judges do not. That is not a controversy. It is the structure of the government.