President Trump’s directive from February 18, 2025, to terminate all remaining U.S. Attorneys appointed by the Biden administration raises significant legal and ethical concerns. These concerns include the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) ability to administer justice effectively, its independence from political influences, and the perception of prosecutorial impartiality with regard to decisions. While the President has the authority to appoint and remove U.S. Attorneys, the manner and timing of these terminations warrant scrutiny under established legal principles and precedents.
Presidential Authority to Remove a U.S. Attorney
The President’s power to remove officers of the Executive Branch is derived from Article II of the U.S. Constitution. Article II mandates that the President “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.”[1] It further grants the President the power to appoint officers with the advice and consent of the Senate.[2] It is important to note that U.S. Attorneys are appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate under 28 U.S.C. 541. The statute does not explicitly limit the President’s removal authority; this indicates that U.S. Attorneys serve at the pleasure of the President.[3]
Under Article II of the U.S. Constitution, it has been well-established that the President has the authority to remove executive officials, including U.S. attorneys. This executive power is vested in the President in its entirety.[4] This authority includes the power to remove executive officers, which aims to guarantee accountability and effective management of the Executive Branch.
While the President’s removal power is broad, it is not absolute. Federal courts have confined this power entirely to the removal of executive officers. U.S. Attorneys, acting as principal federal prosecutors, fall within this category and are therefore subject to removal by the President. Exceptions to unrestricted removal power have been deemed improper in other contexts, such as independent agencies. These exceptions include removal based on inefficiency or malfeasance. These limitations, however, do not seem to apply to U.S. Attorneys, who are deemed clearly to be executive officers under 28 U.S.C. 541.
Recently, the Supreme Court affirmed that the President’s executive power to remove executive officers may not be regulated by Congress or reviewed by the courts. This power is essential to the President’s ability to discharge constitutional responsibilities.[5] However, this authority must be exercised in a manner that does not undermine the integrity and efficiency of the justice system.
Impact on the Administration of Justice
The abrupt dismissal of experienced U.S. Attorneys can significantly affect the continuity of legal proceedings. This can result in delays to ongoing investigations and trials that ultimately hinder the timely administration of justice. U.S. Attorneys are tasked with overseeing federal prosecutions and civil cases. Thus, sudden dismissals can result in a loss of institutional knowledge and diminished prosecutorial effectiveness. Regardless of their qualifications, new appointees will require time to familiarize themselves with active cases, which can lead to backlogs and extended trial timelines. The DOJs obligation to ensure the faithful execution of the law conflicts with such disruptions and delays.
Trial advocacy depends on consistency in representation. U.S. Attorneys play a pivotal role in trial advocacy. Their duties include managing case strategy, developing arguments, preparing witnesses, and leading litigation efforts. Their expertise and familiarity with active cases’ facts, legal precedents, statutes, and procedural nuances are key to ensuring effective advocacy during trials. Sudden terminations disturb this continuity, with new appointees needing to acquire and build institutional knowledge and reassess cases mid-trial. This can result in new appointees having incomplete information or insufficient preparation. As a whole, this breakdown in consistency undermines the DOJ’s ability to present consistent and coherent legal arguments, leading to diminished quality of advocacy.
Furthermore, preparation is integral to being effective in trial advocacy, and sudden dismissals jeopardize this integral process. Legal cases, particularly criminal prosecutions and complex civil litigation, often span months or years. They require meticulous planning, evidence gathering, and coordination with law enforcement agencies, witnesses, and other court officials. The sudden removal of members of the prosecutorial team disrupts these efforts, creating delays during critical stages of trial preparation and evidence presentation. Delays can increase the risk of procedural errors, loss of evidence, or diminished prosecutorial effectiveness, ultimately weakening the government’s ability to advocate in court zealously.
The abrupt dismissal of experienced U.S. Attorneys can interrupt legal proceedings, delay investigations, and hinder the administration of justice. Relevant case law and statutes support this argument by emphasizing the importance of continuity, preparation, and effective advocacy in trial proceedings.
Recently, the Court emphasized that effective advocacy is not measured solely by actions taken throughout the trial but also by attorneys’ preparation and pretrial investigation.[6] Failure to adequately prepare a case for trial can result in ineffective assistance of counsel. This underscores the critical role of preparation in ensuring competent representation. This principle directly supports the argument that abrupt dismissals of U.S. Attorneys, which interrupt preparation and planning, can undermine prosecutorial effectiveness and the quality of advocacy.
Statutory provisions reinforce this vital principle of continuity and preparation in legal proceedings. Under 28 U.S.C § 547. “Duties.” U.S. Attorneys are responsible for prosecuting offenses against the United States and managing civil actions involving the government. Their duties require extensive knowledge of ongoing cases, legal precedents and statutes, and procedural nuances. Thus, the sudden removal of such attorneys can disrupt their ability to effectively discharge these duties, leading to delays and potential procedural errors 28 U.S.C § 547. “Duties”.
Moreover, the statutory framework under 18 U.S.C § 3161. “Time limits and exclusions” highlights the importance of timely trial preparation and the foreseeable consequences of delays. The statute outlines various factors that courts must consider when granting continuances. These factors include determining whether delays would result in a miscarriage of justice or make it impossible to adequately prepare for trial. This statute further affirms the critical role of preparation and continuity in ensuring fair and effective legal proceedings, which is jeopardized by the sudden dismissal of U.S. Attorneys, 18 U.S.C § 3161. “Time limits and exclusions.”
These disruptions are inconsistent with the Department of Justice’s obligation to ensure the faithful execution of the laws and the effective administration of justice. Thus, the sudden removal of experienced, potentially high-level U.S. Attorneys undermines strategic oversight, a cornerstone of trial advocacy. Litigation strategies are crafted on a case-specific basis with an analysis of specific details, expert analysis, and long-term planning (“Introduction to Trial Advocacy”). Regardless of their qualifications, new appointees will require substantial time to familiarize themselves with the current legal strategies. A lack of cohesive trial strategies affects the DOJ’s ability to present unified arguments, detrimental to achieving just and equitable outcomes.
Perception of Politicization and Erosion of Public Trust
The perception of politicization within the DOJ, particularly when prosecutorial decisions appear to be influenced by political considerations, undermines public trust in the justice system. The Supreme Court has recognized that the Executive Branch has exclusive authority over prosecutorial decisions. As such, courts have granted and continue to grant special deference to this function to preserve the justice system’s integrity. However, actions that suggest political motivations in removing experienced U.S. Attorneys raise concerns about the impartiality of prosecutorial decisions. Impartiality arguably is the cornerstone of the rule of law.
Legal and Ethical Considerations
The independence of the DOJ is paramount to upholding the rule of law. The suggestion of political motivations concerning prosecutorial decisions undermines this impartiality and raises legal and ethical questions. The Supreme Court has held that the President’s management of the Executive Branch requires unrestricted power to remove subordinates.[7] However, this power must be balanced against the need to preserve the integrity of legal proceedings and public trust in the justice system.
Preserving the justice system’s impartiality is essential to upholding the rule of law. The DOJ must remain free from political interference and retain its ability to pursue justice independently and objectively. Recent actions by the current administration raise legitimate concerns about the potential politicization of prosecutorial decision-making regarding who is prosecuted and how prosecutions are conducted. Such influence risks undermining public confidence in the DOJ’s integrity. It will lead to the perception that legal decisions are driven by political considerations rather than facts, evidence, and the law.
Conclusion
While the President holds the authority to appoint and remove U.S. Attorneys, the manner and timing of these terminations can and will have profound implications on the administration of justice. It also raises questions regarding the DOJ’s independence and impartiality. The sudden dismissal of experienced prosecutors interrupts the continuity of legal proceedings. The sudden and political nature of these dismissals has and will erode public trust while raising ethical concerns about the impartiality of prosecutorial decisions. To preserve the justice system’s integrity and uphold the rule of law, it is essential to balance the introduction of new appointments under a new executive administration with the need for continuity and impartiality in prosecutorial functions.
[1] Consumer Fin. Prot. Bureau v. ITT Educ. Servs., 219 F. Supp. 3d 878 (2015), Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., 35 F.4th 1328 (2022).
[2] Fed. Hous. Fin. Agency v. City of Chicago, 962 F. Supp. 2d 1044 (2013), Fed. Hous. Fin. Agency v. UBS Ams. Inc., 712 F.3d 136 (2013). Consumer Fin. Prot. Bureau v. ITT Educ. Servs., 219 F. Supp. 3d 878 (2015).
[3] United States v. Vazquez, 69 F. Supp. 2d 286 (1999), Rabadi v. United States DEA, 122 F.4th 371 (2024).
[4] Trump v. United States, 603 U.S. 593 (2024); Baumiller v. Comm’r of SSA, 627 F. Supp. 3d 885 (2022).
[5] Dellinger v. Bessent, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 6914, L.J. v. Kijakazi, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 246308.
[6] Ruiz v. McGinley, 735 F. Supp. 3d 540 (2024)
[7], Trump v. United States, 603 U.S. 593 (2024), Hampton Dellinger in His Pers. Capacity v. Bessent, 2025 U.S. Dist.. LEXIS 36800 (2025).
Recent Comments