Talk:United States Attorney

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

United States: Government Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government. Law This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

It's true that the term "discretion" means, in this context, that the President can fire a U.S. Attorney at any time. I'm concerned, though, that not every reader will realize this legal implication, especially in light of the statement that the U.S. Attorney seves for a four-year term (which could be misunderstood as a fixed term). For that reason, we should expressly state the President's removal power. JamesMLane t c 11:11, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest merging Executive Office for United States Attorneys into this article. There is hardly anything in that article, but it would provide good information for the hirearchy of U.S. Attorneys & their place in the federal government.--Wikiphilia 20:55, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The EOUSA article should be merged with the USAO article. The EOUSA's primary focus is administrating the USAO.

129.74.146.158 18:39, 23 February 2007 (UTC)Gina[reply]

Yes, just go ahead and do it. Terjen 08:22, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge accomplished: Executive Office for United States Attorneys now redirects to here, United States Attorney -- Yellowdesk 03:15, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have read a lot of controversy over the firing of 8 US Attorneys by President Bush and I have also read that President Clinton fired all 93 of them.

My question is: what is the normal proceedure for changing the USA's? Did President Bush fire all 93 of them when he took office? If not, how long di Clinton holdovers remain in office? What about Presidents before Clinton? How did they handle changing the US attorneys?206.212.89.240 14:18, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ANSWER: Yes, Clinton fired all 93. However, the ones that were fired by the Bush admin now were attorneys that had ALREADY been put in place by Bush - it is claimed now that he apparently only realized now that they do not function the way he hoped they would and that's why he had them fired now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.85.181.25 (talk • contribs) (15 March 2007)

Dear readers: I added information on removal of US Attorneys (accidentally edited without an explanation in the edit box. By law, U.S. Attorneys may be removed by the President. In other words, they serve at the pleasure of the President. However, the question raised is what is the normal procedure for changing U.S. Attorneys. For that, I don't have an answer at this moment. Yours, Famspear 14:33, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy -- Yellowdesk 02:05, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This subject seems unnecessarily confused. Some other wikipedia articles show timelines (who came before, who came after), that would help here. These positions are plums, and are always used to reward up-and-coming loyalists. Every President uses their authority to appoint all 93 attorneys upon taking office. Clinton did this in 1993 in one week (the "firings"), Bush took about 2 months in 2001. By now (march-end 2007, Bush has appointed a total of 123 USA (LA times; 93 plus various replacements). Since talk radio likes to indicate that only Clinton did this, I checked, by going thru the list of USA websites in the wikipedia article. This was ludicrously slow, isn't this stuff tabulated anywhere?! The USA's really, really need web-site help (unless they are trying to be secretive - from some of those sites it is difficult to learn that the USA even has a name). I could find no USA that did not start after 2001 - mostly march-april of that year, a few later, but these replacing another Bush-appointee. Reagan fired 78 at his start (LA times) - apparently some senators (pat moynihan was example) asked for a favorite to stay on. One funny thing in LA times article was that Bush apparently did not know that he had fired the original 93 that he inherited, this latter fact from one of the Attorney General's prolix e-mailers.

This whole system is readily fixed: randomly designate each of the current appointees into group 1-5, each gets the balance of a five year term (i.e. 1-5 years). Thus every year, the current President appoints one-fifth of the USA for new five year terms, using normal political favor guidelines, and subject to senate confirmation. No firings except for impeachment of that attorney.

—The preceding

It took Clinton more than a year to actually replace all of the USA's, not just one week. Bush also had a few Clinton appointees for more than a few months. Prior to Reagan, most appointment/replacements from the previous presidential regime were permitted to serve out their four years, and not renewed, so it could take a couple of years to replace them all. A topic worthy of research in a college library. Hard to track down. -- Yellowdesk 22:24, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An anon has been adding material to the article to the effect that the U.S. Senate repealed or rescinded a particular provision of a statute. That is incorrect. Repeals or any other amendments to statutes must be done by the full Congress (both houses) as as an Act of Congress, and then presented to the President. If the President vetoes, then the Act can become law without his signature if the full Congress overrides the veto. The anon claims that the "repeal" occurred yesterday, March 20, 2007. I see nothing in the news or anywhere else that would support the statement that the U.S. Senate unilaterally repealed or rescinded a statute. Yours, Famspear 18:09, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS: You could say, however, that the Senate passed a bill or joint resolution to repeal a statute (if such were the case). However, that would be an Act of the Senate only. It would have no legal effect until sent to the House of Representatives, passed by the House, presented to the President, etc., etc. There is a process as outlined in the Constitution.

Also, perhaps the anonymous editor might have read something about a Senate committee voting to repeal something (possibly??). If that's the case, vote by a Senate committee would not be the passage of a repealing bill or joint resolution by the U.S. Senate.

I don't know what the anonymous editor was referring to, though. Yours, Famspear 18:14, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I located what appears to be the correct description of what happened -- in another Wikipedia article. I have added it to this article, with the citation to the New York Times story, and I have added some clarification language. I don't know whether the House of Representatives had already passed the proposal (i.e., where did it originate?) or, alternatively whether it now needs to go to the House for consideration. In any case, there is no repeal of a statute until and unless both houses pass it and the President signs it into law or it becomes law without his signature (e.g., by his failure to timely act, or by veto override in the Congress). Yours, Famspear 19:42, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it not covered?

Probably covered in within the ambit of some USA for the 9th circuit court. Notice US. Virgin Islands also not listed, which is in the 3rd circuit court system. -- Yellowdesk 22:19, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article on the appointment of U.S. Attorneys seems to concern itself entirely with the law, and to ignore the customs relating to the appointment of U.S. Attorneys, specifically that they are traditionally chosen not by the President, but by the home state senator(s) of the same party as the President (I'm not sure what happens when there are no home state senators of the same party as the president).

I think "consultation" with the highest same-party member as the President from the state in question usually describes it, but there are lots of non-routine appointments. Anyhow, same party: Senator, Governor, and other significant same-party office-holders, along with some variety of lip service or genuine consultation to other party members from the state, all depending on the particular president in question, and other relationships that president desires to maintain. A topic worthy of an article in its own right, since it is not simple, and there are 93 of these positions. Quite a lot of offices and potentially interested consultative parties. -- Yellowdesk 22:04, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removed the phrase "also known as District Attorneys." A District Attorney, or an ADA, prosecutes state crimes, not federal crimes like a US Attorney or ASUA. As such, the sentence "Also known as federal prosecutors or district attorneys" didn't make much sense.

-- Jack. 3 March 2008

This article primarily uses primary sources, and so violates

Material based purely on primary sources should be avoided.

According to

Base articles largely on reliable secondary sources. While primary sources are appropriate in some cases, relying on them can be problematic.

According to

Self-published sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, so long as: the article is not based primarily on such sources.

I do not believe that United States Attorney should be nominated for deletion because it violates these policies. Rather, this article is a useful example to show that these policies require revision. Brews ohare (talk) 19:57, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Assistant United States Attorney redirects here, and that seems problematic to me. There are around 100 Assistant United States Attorneys for each United States Attorney, and they are very different jobs. The AUSAs handle, prosecute, and argue individual cases. The USA manages the entire district office. From a plain language reading of name, a lay person may suspect that an AUSA is a direct assistant to a USA (i.e. what the position of First Assistant United States Attorney actually is), but that would not be correct. In the absence of a detailed clarification of what an AUSA is, ideally in its own article, I think it would best that AUSA not redirect here. Opinions? I'll also post a reference to this discussion in the talk page for the redirect. jhawkinson (talk) 10:58, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

According to this New York Times article, all 93 positions became vacant after the 2017 dismissal of U.S. attorneys in early March, and Trump has not nominated any replacements since then. Shouldn't this be mentioned in the lede? --193.80.207.243 (talk) 20:23, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The phrase «are the only attorneys allowed to participate in grand jury proceedings» may be misleading: Grand juries in the United States states «generally under the supervision of a federal U.S. attorney, a county district attorney, or a state attorney-general». Maybe it's a matter of specifying which cases are being talked about. --Nemo 21:40, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]