Federal Judge Declares Trump Appointee's US Attorney Service Unlawful in Landmark Ruling

A striking legal decision has sent ripples through the federal justice system, with a federal judge ruling that Alexander G. Tse, a U.S. Attorney appointed during the Trump administration, has been unlawfully serving in his high-profile position. The pronouncement by U.S. District Judge Edward M.

Chen specifically targets Tse's role as the U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of California, stirring debate over the procedures for interim federal appointments.

The core of the controversy lies not in Tse's qualifications or actions, but in the technicality of his swearing-in. Judge Chen determined that Tse's oath of office, administered by the outgoing U.S.

Attorney Brian Stretch, was in violation of federal statute 28 U.S.C. Section 546(c). This statute mandates that, in the event of a vacancy, an interim U.S. Attorney must be sworn in by the district court — a crucial detail that was apparently overlooked.

This significant ruling emerged from a civil lawsuit spearheaded by the Democracy Forward Foundation, alongside other advocacy groups and former attorneys general.

Their suit specifically challenged the Trump administration's broad practice of allowing departing U.S. Attorneys to appoint their successors for temporary stints of up to 120 days. Critics argued this circumvented the proper appointment process and potentially opened doors to questionable transitions of power.

The Department of Justice, however, vigorously defended its interpretation of the law.

They contended that Section 546(c) allows an interim attorney to be sworn in by "any official authorized to administer oaths," asserting that the outgoing U.S. Attorney fell within this definition. This legal tug-of-war highlights a fundamental disagreement over the precise procedural requirements governing these critical appointments.

While Judge Chen's decision does not invalidate any actions taken by Tse during his tenure, it critically curtails his ability to serve as U.S.

Attorney going forward, unless he is properly appointed and sworn in according to the court's interpretation of the law. The immediate impact is localized to Tse's position, but the broader implications could be far-reaching, potentially challenging the legitimacy of other interim appointments made under similar circumstances across the country.

The court has scheduled a follow-up hearing to delve into the precise scope of the injunction and to discuss the ramifications of this ruling.

This legal development underscores the intricate balance of power and strict adherence to protocol required within the federal government, reminding all parties that even seemingly minor procedural details can have major constitutional and operational consequences.