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
We haven't discussed the litigation about temporary protected status before, but I want to highlight SG Sauer's application from last night. The issue is important on its own, but this is another glaring example of lower court defiance. And @TheJusticeDept is getting fed up. 1/
First, what is temporary protected status? Basically a temporary immigration waiver for people from a dangerous place. The DHS Secretary can grant temporary immigration amnesty to people from, eg, a war torn country while the war is ongoing. 2/
The essence of the program is that it is *temporary* and *discretionary.* It is a pathway for the Government to *temporarily* help people in dire straits, not to normalize immigration status for millions of people indefinitely. 3/
Have now had a chance to review @TheJusticeDept's emergency filing in this important case at the crossroads of USAID, wasteful foreign spending, and the vital issue of impoundment. The filing is very well done and @TheJusticeDept should win, as we will see. 1/
First lets set the stage. This is a suit from various entities that received money from USAID in the past who now want a district court injunction that forces USAID to spend every penny appropriated to it by Congress. 2/
That is a strange claim, as none of this money is appropriated to *these* entities. The money is appropriated to USAID generally for USAID to spend--or not, as we will discuss--in its discretion. There is thus a basic threshold mismatch between claimant and claims. 3/
As others have noted, @AGPamBondi, SG Sauer, and @TheJusticeDept sought certiorari today in the Supreme Court on tariffs and seek a quick argument and resolution. Want to quickly flag a few of their arguments. 1/
First, they emphasize the gravity of trying to unscramble the tariff egg at this point. Enjoining the tariffs would upend a complex, global framework of intricate trade agreements with untold potential consequences. 2/
Second, they cite extraordinary declarations filed below from Cabinet Secretaries about the importance of the tariffs to American economic security. I say these are extraordinary because Secretaries rarely personally attest to facts in court. Yet here they have. 3/
Some lower court judges seems determined to burn down the village in order to save it, seemingly oblivious that destroying vertical stare decisis will destroy the judiciary generally. Lets review the latest missive in lower court judges' war on the Supreme Court. 1/
First, the basics. The Constitution creates only one court--the Supreme Court. It authorizes Congress to create "inferior courts," but does not mandate them. And the judicial power of these subordinate courts is entirely subordinate to the Supreme Court's. 2/
When lower court judges defy the Supreme Court--as has been happening time and again--that is lawless. Plain and simple. The President has Article II arguments to invoke when he interprets and considers judicial commands. Lower court judges have nada vis the Supreme Court. 3/
BREAKING: @AGPamBondi and SG John Sauer have filed an emergency application in the Supreme Court regarding their huge win in the USAID impoundment case, which we discussed previously. This is a big deal, as I'll explain. 1/
First a point of privilege. Having lived this case in the early days of @DOGE---with then-Acting SG Sarah Harris and many others---I really appreciate how the SG's Office frames the issue. 2/
Second, you might be wondering why @TheJusticeDept is seeking emergency relief in a case it *won*. Even though the DC Circuit deemed the district court's injunction patently unlawful, that injunction dissolves only when the DC Circuit issues its formal mandate. 3/
Some more thoughts from me on this decision in CNN, focused on Justice Gorsuch's separate writing. I also want to respond to a point @steve_vladeck makes in the article. 1/
Vladeck claims it is unreasonable to expect district judges to follow the Supreme Court's emergency orders because those orders are sometimes issued without supporting analysis or with little supporting analysis. I totally disagree. 2/
Vertical stare decisis--the Supreme Court and the lower courts--is the relationship between boss and subordinate. The Supreme Court has direct authority over the lower courts; those courts must follow its decrees regardless of whether they "understand" the underlying reason. 3/