Senator Mike Lee’s new bill could forever reshape how America fills its top federal prosecutor jobs.

Story Snapshot

• Sen. Mike Lee introduced a bill to bar federal judges from appointing interim U.S. attorneys after a 120-day vacancy.
• The legislation would shift all interim appointment power to the executive branch, eliminating a judiciary safeguard against executive inaction.
• Legal experts warn this could politicize appointments and weaken checks and balances between government branches.
• The bill’s fate now lies with the Senate Judiciary Committee, with potential far-reaching effects on federal law enforcement and prosecutorial independence.

Bill Targets Judicial Role in Prosecutor Appointments

Senator Mike Lee (R-Utah) introduced legislation on August 1, 2025, aimed at ending the longstanding power of federal district judges to appoint interim U.S. attorneys once a presidential appointee’s 120-day term expires. This bill proposes that only the executive branch—through the president and the attorney general—should fill such vacancies, eliminating the judiciary’s role as a failsafe in the appointment process. The change would directly impact the sensitive system that determines who leads federal law enforcement in each district, a process that has grown more contentious amid rising political polarization.

Sen. Mike Lee introduced legislation that would prohibit district judges from appointing interim U.S. attorneys if the 120-day term of the person appointed by the president expires. https://t.co/coW0mUiOaZ

— NEWSMAX (@NEWSMAX) August 1, 2025

The current system allows district judges to step in if the executive and Senate deadlock or fail to act, ensuring federal prosecutions continue without interruption. Historically, this judicial backstop was created to fill gaps when the other branches stalled or when political disputes left key posts empty. Critics of the current arrangement, including Sen. Lee, say it blurs lines of authority and undermines the president’s constitutional role as the nation’s chief law enforcement officer. The bill, if enacted, would leave future vacancies solely in the hands of the White House and the Department of Justice, raising new questions about efficiency, partisanship, and accountability in the judicial system.

Watch: Mike Lee’s Controversial Bill to Block Judges from Appointing U.S. Attorneys

Historical Context: Why Judicial Appointments Exist

The office of U.S. Attorney was first established by the Judiciary Act of 1789—well before the creation of the Department of Justice in 1870. For more than a century, federal judges have played a role in appointing interim prosecutors when vacancies occurred, especially when the executive or the Senate failed to act. In 1986, Congress limited this power, giving the attorney general the first opportunity to name an interim U.S. attorney. If a vacancy persisted for 120 days, only then could district judges step in. This system was designed as a safeguard against political gridlock, ensuring law enforcement did not grind to a halt because of partisan bickering or executive inaction. The “blue slip” tradition, where home-state senators can approve or block nominees, has further complicated the appointment process and contributed to delays, particularly when different parties control the White House and the Senate.

This check on executive appointment power has become more important in recent years, as appointments have increasingly become political battlegrounds. Legal scholars and government reports have repeatedly highlighted the judiciary’s role as a failsafe, designed to prevent a breakdown in federal law enforcement if the process stalls elsewhere.