Senator’s Bill Targets Judicial OVERREACH!!

Senator Mike Lee’s bold new bill aims to rip federal judge power away from the appointment of interim U.S. attorneys—a move that exposes just how tangled and overreaching the federal bureaucracy has become, and dares to restore authority exactly where our Constitution intended: with the executive branch.

Story Snapshot

• Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) introduces legislation to block federal judges from appointing interim U.S. attorneys after 120 days
• Bill would return exclusive interim appointment power to the president and attorney general
• Proposal targets a century-old system that lets judges fill vacancies when Senate confirmation stalls
• Supporters say the change restores separation of powers—critics warn it could leave prosecutorial gaps if Washington gridlocks

Senator Lee’s Bill Puts Executive Power Back in Its Place—And Puts the Judiciary on Notice

On August 1, 2025, Senator Mike Lee (R-Utah) introduced legislation that throws a wrench in the gears of the federal appointment machine. If you’re tired of unelected judges filling key law enforcement roles, this bill is a breath of fresh, constitutional air. Lee’s proposal would bar federal district judges from appointing interim U.S. attorneys once the 120-day term of a presidential appointee expires. Instead, the power to fill these critical seats would land squarely in the lap of the executive branch, where the Founders actually meant it to be—cutting out a judicial workaround that’s been a backdoor for decades.

For years, the process has been a convoluted dance between the White House, Senate, and the courts. The “blue slip” tradition lets home-state senators block nominees and, if the Senate drags its feet, district judges have stepped in to fill federal prosecutor slots themselves. Lee’s bill would slam that door shut. No more judge-appointed prosecutors after 120 days of vacancy; no more judicial branch poking its nose into the executive’s business. The intent is clear: untangle the branches, restore accountability, and stop judicial overreach before it becomes the norm, not the exception.

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 Historical Tug-of-War: How the Judiciary Gained—and Might Lose—This Power

Federal judges haven’t always held this appointment power. The office of U.S. Attorney dates back to the Judiciary Act of 1789, predating even the Department of Justice. For much of our nation’s history, U.S. attorneys operated independently, outside the AG’s reach. It was only after the Civil War that circuit court, then district court, judges began stepping in to fill vacancies. Congress tried to rein things in during 1986, giving the Attorney General first crack at interim appointments, but left a 120-day window before judges could take over if the Senate still hadn’t confirmed anyone. The result? In times of gridlock, judges have increasingly filled the vacuum, a trend that Lee’s bill targets head-on.

The justification for letting judges appoint prosecutors was always about continuity when the executive and legislative branches failed to act. But let’s be honest: Does anyone actually think having judges—whose job is to interpret laws, not enforce them—should be appointing the very attorneys who’ll prosecute federal cases in their own courtrooms? The arrangement has always been a constitutional oddity, and Lee’s proposal is a long-overdue correction.

Gridlock, Power Struggles, and the Fight for Accountability

Supporters of Lee’s bill argue that it draws a bright, constitutional line between the branches. When the Senate stalls—thanks to partisan bickering or “blue slip” gamesmanship—it shouldn’t be the judiciary’s problem to solve. Instead, the executive should shoulder the responsibility, and the political costs, of keeping key law enforcement positions filled. Critics, of course, are already wringing their hands about the possibility of empty prosecutor seats if Washington can’t get its act together. But let’s face it: If the executive and Congress can’t do their jobs, maybe the answer isn’t to let someone else do it for them—but to hold them accountable for the consequences.

Legal scholars have long debated whether the judiciary’s interim appointment power is a safeguard or a constitutional blunder. Research points out that the process is already hyper-politicized, with the Senate holding nominees hostage for leverage. Handing even more power to the executive might escalate those battles, but it would also force the branches to do their jobs, out in the open, where Americans can see who’s responsible for the mess.

What’s Next: Will Congress Rein in the Judicial Backstop?

As of now, Lee’s bill sits before the Senate Judiciary Committee, waiting for action. The Department of Justice and federal judiciary have kept quiet—no surprise there, since both have skin in the game. If this legislation moves forward, the implications are immediate: No more judges stepping into the prosecutor’s chair. Instead, the executive branch must nominate, and the Senate must confirm—or face the heat for vacancies and stalled prosecutions. In the short term, there could be hiccups and unfilled seats if D.C. gridlocks. But in the long run, this is about restoring the government to its constitutional tracks and stopping the creeping, unelected power of the courts.

Tweets by NEWSMAX

In a political era where government overreach and bureaucratic power grabs have become the rule, not the exception, Lee’s bill is a shot across the bow. It’s a reminder that, in America, the Constitution—not judicial whim—sets the rules. And for those who believe in limited government, real accountability, and restoring common sense to Washington, it’s a fight worth having.