For nearly a decade now, we've watched Trump overcome barriers designed to contain a rogue leader, exploit one loophole after another, and manage to turn every legal ambiguity to his advantage.
It is therefore worth noting that one relatively small structural fence holds firm and provided a check today on one of Trump's worst abuses.
Following a November 13 hearing on the legality of Halligan's appointment, I wrote that Curry gave no indication that she believed Halligan was lawfully appointed, but it was not clear that Curry would go for the maximum remedy of dismissing the indictments with prejudice, meaning the cases could not be reopened. In the end, she resigned without any prejudice.
But more importantly for our immediate purposes, Lindsey Halligan was exactly the kind of U.S. attorney for whom the legislative power-sharing scheme was designed: a loyalist to the president who was his personal lawyer and most recently served in his White House; a newcomer with no experience as a prosecutor; a temporary figure meant to play a transactional role: the prosecution named Trump's enemies without regard to the law, facts or principles of justice.
The main question was whether Halligan was properly appointed, but the politicized prosecutions of Comey and James were rife with other legal flaws. Because the cases were dismissed without prejudice, James could be charged again. It's unclear whether Comey could be due to the statute of limitations in his case. But assuming Curry's rulings stand on appeal, the issuance of new indictments at Trump's direction will depend on an interim prosecutor appointed by the district judges, not Pam Bondi. To do so, they will have to once again reject or ignore the deep doubts of the career prosecutors in the office and be willing to put their careers on the line in cases already tainted by corruption.
In an attempt to disrupt this long-established power-sharing regime, the Trump administration has sought to strip both other branches of some of their prerogatives. Rejecting the administration's arguments, U.S. District Judge Cameron McGowan Curry of South Carolina showed that the statutory power structure must be strong and sustainable.
Following a November 13 hearing on the legality of Halligan's appointment, I wrote that Curry gave no indication that she believed Halligan was lawfully appointed, but it was not clear that Curry would go for the maximum remedy of dismissing the indictments with prejudice, meaning the cases could not be reopened. In the end, she resigned without any prejudice.
But more importantly for our immediate purposes, Lindsey Halligan was exactly the kind of U.S. attorney for whom the legislative power-sharing scheme was designed: a loyalist to the president who was his personal lawyer and most recently served in his White House; a newcomer with no experience as a prosecutor; a temporary figure meant to play a transactional role: the prosecution named Trump's enemies without regard to the law, facts or principles of justice.
The main question was whether Halligan was properly appointed, but the politicized prosecutions of Comey and James were rife with other legal flaws. Because the cases were dismissed without prejudice, James could be charged again. It's unclear whether Comey could be due to the statute of limitations in his case. But assuming Curry's rulings stand on appeal, the issuance of new indictments at Trump's direction will depend on an interim prosecutor appointed by the district judges, not Pam Bondi. To do so, they will have to once again reject or ignore the deep doubts of the career prosecutors in the office and be willing to put their careers on the line in cases already tainted by corruption.
The executive branch can fill the seat, but only temporarily so that it cannot bypass the legislative branch, where the Senate must confirm U.S. attorneys. If the executive branch could appoint interim U.S. attorneys for indefinite periods, the role of the Senate would be undermined. To complete the circle, Congress gave the judiciary the power to appoint interim U.S. attorneys after 120 days and thus guarantee some minimum level of competence and professionalism for the district's chief federal prosecutor. The legislative agreement also creates a “use it or lose it” incentive for the executive branch to work with the Senate to nominate confirmed nominees. Play too hard with the senators and you'll lose your appointment powers to the circuit judges.
In an attempt to disrupt this long-established power-sharing regime, the Trump administration has sought to strip both other branches of some of their prerogatives. Rejecting the administration's arguments, U.S. District Judge Cameron McGowan Curry of South Carolina showed that the statutory power structure must be strong and sustainable.
Following a November 13 hearing on the legality of Halligan's appointment, I wrote that Curry gave no indication that she believed Halligan was lawfully appointed, but it was not clear that Curry would go for the maximum remedy of dismissing the indictments with prejudice, meaning the cases could not be reopened. In the end, she resigned without any prejudice.
But more importantly for our immediate purposes, Lindsey Halligan was exactly the kind of U.S. attorney for whom the legislative power-sharing scheme was designed: a loyalist to the president who was his personal lawyer and most recently served in his White House; a newcomer with no experience as a prosecutor; a temporary figure meant to play a transactional role: the prosecution named Trump's enemies without regard to the law, facts or principles of justice.
The main question was whether Halligan was properly appointed, but the politicized prosecutions of Comey and James were rife with other legal flaws. Because the cases were dismissed without prejudice, James could be charged again. It's unclear whether Comey could be due to the statute of limitations in his case. But assuming Curry's rulings stand on appeal, the issuance of new indictments at Trump's direction will depend on an interim prosecutor appointed by the district judges, not Pam Bondi. To do so, they will have to once again reject or ignore the deep doubts of the career prosecutors in the office and be willing to put their careers on the line in cases already tainted by corruption.
This is the structural distribution of power between all three branches of government:
The executive branch can fill the seat, but only temporarily so that it cannot bypass the legislative branch, where the Senate must confirm U.S. attorneys. If the executive branch could appoint interim U.S. attorneys for indefinite periods, the role of the Senate would be undermined. To complete the circle, Congress gave the judiciary the power to appoint interim U.S. attorneys after 120 days and thus guarantee some minimum level of competence and professionalism for the district's chief federal prosecutor. The legislative agreement also creates a “use it or lose it” incentive for the executive branch to work with the Senate to nominate confirmed nominees. Play too hard with the senators and you'll lose your appointment powers to the circuit judges.
In an attempt to disrupt this long-established power-sharing regime, the Trump administration has sought to strip both other branches of some of their prerogatives. Rejecting the administration's arguments, U.S. District Judge Cameron McGowan Curry of South Carolina showed that the statutory power structure must be strong and sustainable.
Following a November 13 hearing on the legality of Halligan's appointment, I wrote that Curry gave no indication that she believed Halligan was lawfully appointed, but it was not clear that Curry would go for the maximum remedy of dismissing the indictments with prejudice, meaning the cases could not be reopened. In the end, she resigned without any prejudice.
But more importantly for our immediate purposes, Lindsey Halligan was exactly the kind of U.S. attorney for whom the legislative power-sharing scheme was designed: a loyalist to the president who was his personal lawyer and most recently served in his White House; a newcomer with no experience as a prosecutor; a temporary figure meant to play a transactional role: the prosecution named Trump's enemies without regard to the law, facts or principles of justice.
The main question was whether Halligan was properly appointed, but the politicized prosecutions of Comey and James were rife with other legal flaws. Because the cases were dismissed without prejudice, James could be charged again. It's unclear whether Comey could be due to the statute of limitations in his case. But assuming Curry's rulings stand on appeal, the issuance of new indictments at Trump's direction will depend on an interim prosecutor appointed by the district judges, not Pam Bondi. To do so, they will have to once again reject or ignore the deep doubts of the career prosecutors in the office and be willing to put their careers on the line in cases already tainted by corruption.
layoffs The politicized accusations against James Comey and Letitia James boiled down to a key provision of the law passed by Congress on the issue of vacancies for American lawyers. The Attorney General may appoint an interim U.S. Attorney for 120 days, but after 120 days, the interim U.S. Attorney must be selected by the judges of that district.
This is the structural distribution of power between all three branches of government:
The executive branch can fill the seat, but only temporarily so that it cannot bypass the legislative branch, where the Senate must confirm U.S. attorneys. If the executive branch could appoint interim U.S. attorneys for indefinite periods, the role of the Senate would be undermined. To complete the circle, Congress gave the judiciary the power to appoint interim U.S. attorneys after 120 days and thus guarantee some minimum level of competence and professionalism for the district's chief federal prosecutor. The legislative agreement also creates a “use it or lose it” incentive for the executive branch to work with the Senate to nominate confirmed nominees. Play too hard with the senators and you'll lose your appointment powers to the circuit judges.
In an attempt to disrupt this long-established power-sharing regime, the Trump administration has sought to strip both other branches of some of their prerogatives. Rejecting the administration's arguments, U.S. District Judge Cameron McGowan Curry of South Carolina showed that the statutory power structure must be strong and sustainable.
Following a November 13 hearing on the legality of Halligan's appointment, I wrote that Curry gave no indication that she believed Halligan was lawfully appointed, but it was not clear that Curry would go for the maximum remedy of dismissing the indictments with prejudice, meaning the cases could not be reopened. In the end, she resigned without any prejudice.
But more importantly for our immediate purposes, Lindsey Halligan was exactly the kind of U.S. attorney for whom the legislative power-sharing scheme was designed: a loyalist to the president who was his personal lawyer and most recently served in his White House; a newcomer with no experience as a prosecutor; a temporary figure meant to play a transactional role: the prosecution named Trump's enemies without regard to the law, facts or principles of justice.
The main question was whether Halligan was properly appointed, but the politicized prosecutions of Comey and James were rife with other legal flaws. Because the cases were dismissed without prejudice, James could be charged again. It's unclear whether Comey could be due to the statute of limitations in his case. But assuming Curry's rulings stand on appeal, the issuance of new indictments at Trump's direction will depend on an interim prosecutor appointed by the district judges, not Pam Bondi. To do so, they will have to once again reject or ignore the deep doubts of the career prosecutors in the office and be willing to put their careers on the line in cases already tainted by corruption.
layoffs The politicized accusations against James Comey and Letitia James boiled down to a key provision of the law passed by Congress on the issue of vacancies for American lawyers. The Attorney General may appoint an interim U.S. Attorney for 120 days, but after 120 days, the interim U.S. Attorney must be selected by the judges of that district.
This is the structural distribution of power between all three branches of government:
The executive branch can fill the seat, but only temporarily so that it cannot bypass the legislative branch, where the Senate must confirm U.S. attorneys. If the executive branch could appoint interim U.S. attorneys for indefinite periods, the role of the Senate would be undermined. To complete the circle, Congress gave the judiciary the power to appoint interim U.S. attorneys after 120 days and thus guarantee some minimum level of competence and professionalism for the district's chief federal prosecutor. The legislative agreement also creates a “use it or lose it” incentive for the executive branch to work with the Senate to nominate confirmed nominees. Play too hard with the senators and you'll lose your appointment powers to the circuit judges.
In an attempt to disrupt this long-established power-sharing regime, the Trump administration has sought to strip both other branches of some of their prerogatives. Rejecting the administration's arguments, U.S. District Judge Cameron McGowan Curry of South Carolina showed that the statutory power structure must be strong and sustainable.
Following a November 13 hearing on the legality of Halligan's appointment, I wrote that Curry gave no indication that she believed Halligan was lawfully appointed, but it was not clear that Curry would go for the maximum remedy of dismissing the indictments with prejudice, meaning the cases could not be reopened. In the end, she resigned without any prejudice.
But more importantly for our immediate purposes, Lindsey Halligan was exactly the kind of U.S. attorney for whom the legislative power-sharing scheme was designed: a loyalist to the president who was his personal lawyer and most recently served in his White House; a newcomer with no experience as a prosecutor; a temporary figure meant to play a transactional role: the prosecution named Trump's enemies without regard to the law, facts or principles of justice.
The main question was whether Halligan was properly appointed, but the politicized prosecutions of Comey and James were rife with other legal flaws. Because the cases were dismissed without prejudice, James could be charged again. It's unclear whether Comey could be due to the statute of limitations in his case. But assuming Curry's rulings stand on appeal, the issuance of new indictments at Trump's direction will depend on an interim prosecutor appointed by the district judges, not Pam Bondi. To do so, they will have to once again reject or ignore the deep doubts of the career prosecutors in the office and be willing to put their careers on the line in cases already tainted by corruption.
