A federal judge has ruled that Ryan Ellison, the acting U.S. Attorney for the District of New Mexico, was improperly appointed and therefore has been serving unlawfully in the top federal prosecutor role, delivering a fresh legal setback for the Trump administration’s efforts to place loyalists in key Justice Department posts.
Senior U.S. District Judge David Nuffer concluded on Wednesday that the Justice Department exceeded its statutory authority when it designated Ellison as acting U.S. Attorney after his initial interim term expired. The ruling came in connection with a motion filed by criminal defendants challenging Ellison’s authority to oversee prosecutions in the district. Although the judge found Ellison’s appointment invalid, he allowed Ellison to remain in the office in the first assistant role, which traditionally serves as the second-in-command and steps in during vacancies.
Appointment Fight Amid Vacancy Law Tensions
At issue is whether the Justice Department followed federal law governing temporary appointments to U.S. Attorney posts. Under the Federal Vacancies Reform Act and related statutes, presidents must either secure Senate confirmation for permanent appointments or abide by strict rules when naming acting successors. According to the order, the administration’s maneuver to keep Ellison in the chief prosecutor role after his interim term ended violated those procedures, a pattern of legal challenges that has affected several Trump-era appointments across the country.
The judge’s decision mirrors similar rulings in other jurisdictions, where courts have found that Trump’s Justice Department exceeded its authority by bypassing the Senate confirmation process and improperly installing acting prosecutors. While Ellison can continue serving in an official capacity, his authority to act as the district’s top federal prosecutor has effectively been curtailed.
Implications for Federal Prosecutions
The ruling is significant because it calls into question the legitimacy of prosecutorial actions taken under Ellison’s leadership during the period when he was unlawfully serving as acting U.S. Attorney. Defense attorneys in criminal cases argued that indictments and legal proceedings overseen by Ellison should be dismissed, though the judge declined to strip him of prosecutorial responsibilities entirely.
The Justice Department is expected to appeal, arguing that its interpretation of the vacancies law was lawful and that judges have limited authority to dictate executive staffing decisions. As similar challenges to other Trump appointees continue to wend through the courts, questions about executive power, the role of presidential appointments, and the independence of U.S. Attorneys are likely to remain at the forefront of legal debates this year.