# Two Unconfirmed Attorneys Claim U.S. Attorney Title in Seattle, Raising Constitutional Questions
Two individuals are simultaneously claiming the title of U.S. Attorney for the Western District of Washington, despite neither receiving Senate confirmation. The situation presents a rare constitutional crisis involving the Federal Vacancies Reform Act and the proper chain of command within the Department of Justice.
The Western District of Washington serves the Seattle area and handles federal prosecutions across the region. The position of U.S. Attorney requires presidential nomination and Senate confirmation under Article II of the Constitution. When a vacancy occurs, the Vacancies Reform Act of 1998, codified at 5 U.S.C. Section 3345 et seq., permits the President to designate a successor on a temporary basis while the Senate processes the nomination.
The conflict stems from competing claims to the role. One individual holds a designation under the Vacancies Reform Act, which allows temporary service for up to 210 days renewable once if the original nominee remains pending. The second claims authority through an alternative chain of command within the DOJ structure. This dueling authority creates operational chaos. Federal prosecutors cannot function effectively when uncertainty exists about who actually leads the office and possesses signing authority over indictments, plea agreements, and litigation decisions.
The reference to a Spider-Man meme points to the absurdist nature of the situation. The meme depicts two Spider-Man figures pointing at each other, suggesting they are identical yet both claiming different authority. In this instance, both attorneys general positions are purportedly valid under different legal theories, yet their simultaneous assertion creates confusion about which one exercises actual prosecutorial power.
This scenario raises serious constitutional questions. The Appointments Clause requires Senate confirmation for principal officers of the United States. Courts have interpreted U.S. Attorneys as principal officers due to their significant prosecutorial discretion and independence from direct supervision. The Vacancies Reform Act represents Congress's attempt to balance executive needs during confirmation delays with constitutional requirements for Senate participation in appointments. Courts have upheld the Act's constitutionality in cases like Burnap v. United States, 252 F.3d 1072 (8th Cir. 2001).
However, the existence of two competing claimants suggests something has gone wrong in the application of these rules. Either the department failed to properly designate one individual under the Act, or leadership disputes led to conflicting chains of authority being invoked simultaneously.
For criminal defendants, this creates potentially significant issues. Any person prosecuted during this period might challenge the validity of indictments or prosecutions based on the Article II appointment question. Under the reasoning in cases like United States v. Buckley, 506 F.3d 1037 (9th Cir. 2007), federal prosecutors derive authority from their constitutional appointment. If a defendant can demonstrate the acting U.S. Attorney lacked proper authority, conviction could be reversed.
The situation demands immediate clarification from the Department of Justice. The Attorney General must issue explicit guidance designating which individual holds authority and on what legal basis. The Senate should expedite confirmation proceedings to eliminate the uncertainty. Without swift resolution, ongoing prosecutions remain vulnerable to constitutional challenge, and the federal judiciary in Washington cannot function with clear authority lines. This scenario underscores why Senate confirmation requirements exist and why the Vacancies Reform Act requires precise compliance with its procedural requirements.