In the United States, the Department of Justice terminated James Hundley from his newly appointed role as interim U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia just hours after his appointment by federal judges on January 26, 2026. Chief U.S. District Judge M. Hannah Lauck had administered Hundley's oath of office in Richmond, Virginia, after his appointment was confirmed by a unanimous decision from the judges of the Eastern District. This swift dismissal by Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche sparked further controversy regarding the authority over U.S. Attorney appointments. Blanche publicly stated that federal judges do not have the authority to appoint U.S. Attorneys, as that power lies with the President. Thus, James Hundley was dismissed with the remark, 'Here we go again. EDVA judges do not pick our US Attorney. POTUS does. James Hundley, you’re fired!'. This dismissal reflects ongoing conflicts between the executive and judicial branches concerning the appointment of federal prosecutors. Hundley, a veteran attorney with more than 30 years of experience, had been brought in to fill the vacancy left by Lindsey Halligan, a Trump appointee who resigned after a judicial ruling deemed her role unlawful. Halligan's tenure as U.S. Attorney had been criticized due to her lack of prosecutorial experience. Just prior to Hundley's firing, the DOJ terminated another U.S. Attorney, Donald Kinsella, under similar circumstances. These repeated firings of court-appointed U.S. Attorneys have raised questions about judicial independence and the role of the Department of Justice in maintaining continuity in federal prosecutions. Additionally, the situation reflects tensions within the DOJ, as the appointments of U.S. Attorneys require Senate confirmations, making vacancies politically charged and contentious. With the absence of confirmed nominees, judicial decisions on the appropriateness of interim U.S. Attorneys prompted these recent dismissals. For example, a similar situation occurred with Alina Habba, whose disqualification led to extra DOJ officials having to manage responsibilities typically assigned to a U.S. Attorney. These events highlight the broader struggle for influence and control over critical judicial appointments amid a polarized political environment. As federal judges continue attempting to assert authority in appointing U.S. Attorneys, the executive branch’s resistance showcases a constitutional conflict that remains unresolved. The events surrounding Hundley’s firing emphasize the complexities and legalities in U.S. Attorney appointments, which have taken center stage in discussions about judicial and executive relationships, further fueling ongoing debates on transparency and the rule of law within the federal justice system.