The administration asks the Supreme Court to uphold its acting U.S. attorney appointments

The Trump administration asked the Supreme Court to review the Ninth Circuit's ruling that Sigal Chattah may not serve as acting United States attorney for Nevada, with John Sauer's petition for the administration arguing the appointment was lawful and a tool the executive branch has used for 25 years.

What happened

SCOTUSblog reports the administration asked the justices on Tuesday to weigh in on the legality of the appointment of an acting U.S. attorney in Nevada. Then-Attorney General Pamela Jo Bondi appointed Chattah as interim U.S. attorney in March, effective 1 April; Chattah resigned two days before the interim appointment was set to expire, and Bondi then designated her as the first assistant U.S. attorney. In a 34-page opinion the Ninth Circuit's Judge Eric Miller held that the Federal Vacancies Reform Act does not permit the executive to fill an existing vacancy by designating a new first assistant. Sauer's petition tells the justices the designation was lawful and "a critical tool that the Executive Branch has used without meaningful objection for 25 years," and argues the court should grant review because the courts of appeals have interpreted the key provisions of the FVRA differently. Other federal courts have similarly invalidated the appointments of acting U.S. attorneys in New Jersey, New York, Virginia and California. The defendants challenging Chattah's appointment have until 8 October to respond, although that deadline may be extended.

Why it matters

Senate confirmation is the check that stands between a president and the person who decides whom to prosecute in a district. The designation method at issue fills that office without it, and courts have now invalidated it for acting U.S. attorneys in five states; this petition asks the Supreme Court to ratify the method rather than abandon it. What the case decides is not one appointment but whether the confirmation step can be routed around as a matter of course.

Source

scotusblog.com