All articles tagged with #appointments clause
A federal judge ruled that the District of New Jersey U.S. Attorney’s Office leadership—divided among three appointees after Alina Habba’s disqualification—was unlawfully appointed and exceeded the Attorney General’s authority, potentially affecting pending cases; this marks the second such ruling in under a year and reflects broader challenges to interim U.S. attorneys nationwide.
A federal judge ruled that Kari Lake unlawfully led the U.S. Agency for Global Media without Senate confirmation, voiding mass layoffs and other actions taken during her tenure, with the court citing the Appointments Clause and Vacancies Act; Lake says she will appeal, while VOA staff view the ruling as a step toward restoring operations and journalistic independence.
A federal judge ruled that Kari Lake’s tenure as acting CEO of the Voice of America violated federal law, voiding a broad set of staff cuts and shutdowns she oversaw; the court found she was not lawfully serving and thus unable to exercise CEO authority under the Federal Vacancies Reform Act and the Appointments Clause, with the actions taken between July 31 and November 19, 2025, being void and a court-ordered pause on layoffs remaining in place as the case proceeds with Lake appealing.
A federal judge ruled Kari Lake lacked authority to serve as CEO of the U.S. Agency for Global Media, voiding her actions—including hundreds of VOA layoffs—because she had not been Senate-confirmed; the effect on VOA operations is unclear, and Lake said she will appeal.
Federal judge Royce C. Lamberth ruled that Kari Lake unlawfully ran the U.S. Agency for Global Media last year, voiding mass VOA layoffs and other actions, in a rebuke of her bid to lead the agency. The ruling cites violations of the appointments clause and the Federal Vacancies Reform Act, and VOA staff and press-freedom groups hailed it as a restoration of operations, though Lake said she will appeal and the impact on staff remains uncertain.
A federal judge in the Eastern District of Virginia barred Lindsey Halligan from referring to herself as United States Attorney in court filings, saying her appointment was unlawful and that continuing to use the title ignores a binding court order; the DOJ had argued otherwise but reversed, and Halligan’s status remains disputed as the court seeks a replacement for the position.
A Virginia case hinges on the DOJ’s decision to have Halligan continue as U.S. Attorney despite a judge’s ruling that her appointment may be unlawful; the government’s response brief is criticized for vitriolic rhetoric and threats toward the judge. The piece argues that, even with a sound legal position, such rhetoric undermines court relations and that the proper path is appellate review rather than courtroom invective, with the matter likely headed to the Fourth Circuit for resolution.
The Justice Department says Lindsey Halligan remains the interim U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia despite a judge’s ruling that her appointment violated the Appointments Clause, arguing that the Currie ruling applied only to the James and Comey cases and did not force Halligan to relinquish the title. DOJ officials criticized Judge Novak’s request for an explanation as procedural overreach and noted that replacement authority would lie with the district court until the Senate confirms a nominee.
DOJ lawyers defended Lindsey Halligan’s continued use of the U.S. attorney title after a judge ruled her interim appointment invalid, arguing the Currie decision doesn’t bar her from all duties and blasting the demand for justification as an abuse of power; Novak ordered Halligan to explain why she uses the title, while Currie previously held the appointment violated the Appointments Clause and voided indictments related to James Comey and Letitia James, highlighting a high-stakes dispute over appointment authority in Virginia’s Eastern District.
A legal challenge has been filed against Alina Habba's authority to prosecute cases, drawing on a ruling by Judge Cannon that questioned her appointment, in an effort to potentially dismiss or disqualify her and her office, impacting ongoing federal cases related to Trump.
The Supreme Court upheld a provision of the Affordable Care Act that established a panel to recommend free preventive services, ruling 6-3 that the panel's members are lawfully appointed under the Constitution's appointments clause, addressing a challenge based on the panel's structure and appointment process.
Former Attorney General Ed Meese, along with law professors Steven G. Calabresi and Gary S. Lawson, filed a friend-of-the-court brief arguing that Special Counsel Jack Smith's appointment by Attorney General Merrick Garland is unconstitutional. They claim that Smith, a private citizen, lacks the authority to represent the United States in the Supreme Court and that his appointment violates the Appointments Clause of the Constitution. They argue that Smith's petition should be denied, citing the absence of statutory authority and the requirement for presidential appointment and senatorial confirmation for such a position. Smith had requested expedited consideration of former President Donald Trump's case regarding presidential immunity for his actions on January 6, 2021.