Bombshell Ruling: Federal Judge Finds Trump-Era D.C. U.S. Attorney Unlawfully Served, Threatening Past Cases

In a development sending shockwaves through Washington D.C.'s legal circles, a federal judge has delivered a stunning rebuke to a Trump-era appointment, ruling that Matthew Graves, the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia, was unlawfully holding his powerful position for a significant period.

This bombshell decision, handed down by U.S. District Judge Dabney Friedrich, a Trump appointee herself, could cast a long shadow over a multitude of cases handled by the D.C. U.S. Attorney's office during Graves' tenure, raising profound questions about their legitimacy.

The core of the controversy centers on the Federal Vacancies Reform Act (FVRA), a crucial piece of legislation designed to prevent presidents from indefinitely installing "acting" officials without Senate confirmation.

Judge Friedrich found that Graves' appointment violated this act, specifically the 300-day limit for acting officials. While Graves was initially installed as an interim U.S. Attorney in December 2020 by then-Attorney General William Barr, it was his subsequent re-designation by the Biden administration in November 2021 that triggered the legal challenge.

The judge determined that from November 2021 until May 2022, Graves was unlawfully serving in his capacity, as his appointment had far exceeded the statutory limit.

The ruling emerged from a routine gun possession case, United States v. Jerry Wicks, where defense attorneys astutely argued that because Graves was not lawfully appointed during the period of prosecution, his office lacked the proper authority to pursue the charges.

Judge Friedrich concurred with this assessment, finding that the Biden administration's attempt to extend Graves' acting status through a series of "consecutive appointments" was an circumvention of the FVRA's clear intent. This isn't just a technicality; it strikes at the heart of legal authority and due process.

The implications of this decision are far-reaching and potentially disruptive.

If the ruling stands, it could open the floodgates for challenges to convictions, indictments, and other legal actions initiated or overseen by the D.C. U.S. Attorney's office between November 2021 and May 2022. This period encompasses a significant volume of critical cases, including those related to the January 6th Capitol riot, as well as a myriad of local criminal prosecutions.

Defendants might now argue that the charges against them were brought by an illegitimate authority, potentially leading to dismissals or new trials.

Unsurprisingly, the Justice Department has swiftly announced its intention to appeal Judge Friedrich’s ruling. A spokesperson stated that the Department "disagrees with the district court's decision and is appealing." This indicates that the legal battle is far from over, and the higher courts will now grapple with the complex constitutional and statutory questions raised by this judgment.

The case serves as a stark reminder of the delicate balance of power between the executive and legislative branches and the critical importance of adhering to established legal frameworks for appointments.

The FVRA has historically been a point of contention and has seen various administrations navigate its strictures, often with mixed results.

This particular ruling highlights the judiciary's role in holding the executive accountable for following proper legal procedures, even when it comes to seemingly administrative appointments. As the appeal process unfolds, the legal community will be watching closely, understanding that the final outcome could set a significant precedent for how future U.S.

Attorneys and other high-ranking officials are appointed, and the potential vulnerabilities of cases prosecuted under what are deemed to be unlawful tenures.