Attorneys for the Justice Department are pushing a novel theory in federal court that would effectively grant the Trump administration the ability to circumvent Congress in its appointments to federal agencies, a theory that one attorney described as “terrifying,” Politico reported Friday evening.
That novel theory was argued Friday by DOJ attorney Mark Coyne, who was defending Attorney General Pam Bondi’s authority to make temporary appointments to the New Jersey U.S. Attorney’s Office. The office was previously led by Alina Habba – President Donald Trump’s former personal attorney – before she resigned after a judge found her to be serving in the position unlawfully.
In Habba’s absence, Bondi appointed three people to run the New Jersey U.S. Attorney’s Office, appointments that are now being challenged in a federal courtroom in Newark, New Jersey, with arguments being heard by Judge Matthew Brann, a conservative judge appointed by former President Barack Obama.
Coyne argued that not only did Bondi have the authority to make judicial appointments when a seat was vacant, but that she held the authority to appoint heads of federal agencies in instances where there was a vacancy, including at the FBI or elsewhere.
“From a policy perspective, it may be unsatisfactory to some,” Coyne admitted after suggesting there to be no limits to Bondi’s appointment authority for vacant positions, Politico reported.
Brann described Coyne’s suggestion of Bondi’s unlimited appointment authority the “ultimate elephant in the mousehole,” though Doug Passon, an attorney challenging Bondi’s authority, issued a far graver warning for the implications of the DOJ’s argument.
“These are terrifying abuses of power and they have to be held in check,” Passon said, who also called Coyne’s remarks “scary.”
The post Trump DOJ pushes ‘terrifying’ theory in court that could gut congressional power: report appeared first on Raw Story.
