A sudden resignation by a Trump-appointed federal prosecutor has drawn renewed attention to the growing conflict between the executive branch, the Senate, and the judiciary over how U.S. attorneys are appointed and confirmed. The departure follows a recent court ruling that invalidated a separate prosecutorial appointment, raising broader questions about political influence, institutional norms, and the stability of federal law enforcement leadership.
The resignation came late Friday, just days after a federal court ruled that a high-profile acting U.S. attorney in a neighboring state had been unlawfully serving in her position. While the ruling did not directly involve the Delaware office, it sent shockwaves through the Justice Department, particularly among officials whose appointments were already facing scrutiny due to procedural and political disputes.
In a detailed public statement, the departing prosecutor defended her record in office and rejected claims that her work had been motivated by partisan loyalty. Instead, she placed blame squarely on what she described as a “highly politicized and flawed” Senate tradition that she says effectively prevented her from being formally considered for the position despite her qualifications and performance.
At the heart of the controversy is the so-called “blue slip” tradition—a long-standing but nonbinding practice in which home-state senators must return a favorable approval form before certain judicial and prosecutorial nominees can advance through the Senate Judiciary Committee. While defenders of the practice argue it preserves senatorial courtesy and local input, critics say it has become a tool for partisan obstruction.
According to the resignation letter, both U.S. senators from the state declined to return blue slips, effectively blocking the prosecutor from consideration without a hearing or vote. She argued that the refusal had nothing to do with her professional conduct and everything to do with partisan politics.
“I believed that my work would speak for itself,” she wrote. “Instead, it became clear that performance was irrelevant in the face of a political process that denies even the opportunity for evaluation.”
The resignation, she said, was not motivated by personal ambition or frustration alone, but by concern for the credibility and stability of the office she led. Allowing the controversy to continue, she argued, would risk turning active investigations into political flashpoints and undermine public trust in federal law enforcement.
“I cannot allow the office to become a political football,” she wrote, emphasizing that career prosecutors and staff should be able to do their jobs without uncertainty hanging over leadership.
Only after laying out her reasoning does the identity of the departing official become clear: Julianne Murray, the acting U.S. attorney for the District of Delaware and a former chairwoman of the Delaware Republican Party.
Murray had been serving in an interim capacity after being appointed during President Donald Trump’s administration. Her role was always temporary, but she had hoped to be considered for a full-term appointment. Instead, she says, the blue slip impasse prevented her nomination from ever reaching the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Murray also linked her decision to the recent court ruling that found another Trump-aligned prosecutor—Alina Habba—had been unlawfully appointed as acting U.S. attorney in New Jersey. That ruling limited the administration’s ability to extend acting appointments and underscored the legal vulnerabilities of prosecutors serving without Senate confirmation.
In her statement, Murray said the ruling made clear that continuing to serve under such conditions could further erode confidence in the rule of law. Stepping aside, she argued, was the responsible choice in order to protect both ongoing investigations and the institutional integrity of the Justice Department.
Before resigning, Murray endorsed a potential successor, naming veteran prosecutor Ben Wallace as the only individual she believed should fill the role if she could not continue. She emphasized continuity and professionalism, underscoring her desire to avoid disruption within the office.
Despite her departure, Murray made clear that she does not intend to leave public service altogether. She said she plans to continue working within the Justice Department in another capacity and concluded her statement with a note of defiance.
“Those who believe they have forced me out are mistaken,” she wrote. “I did not get here by being timid. My faith gives me confidence that this is not the end.”
The episode highlights a broader challenge facing the Trump administration and its allies: the difficulty of staffing key prosecutorial positions amid Senate resistance and judicial scrutiny. President Trump has repeatedly criticized the blue slip tradition, arguing that it allows partisan senators to effectively veto nominees and paralyze the justice system in states where slips are withheld.
However, efforts to abolish or bypass the practice have met resistance even within Trump’s own party. Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley of Iowa has defended the blue slip tradition as a safeguard against unilateral executive appointments, and several Republican senators have aligned with him despite pressure from the White House.
As a result, the administration has increasingly relied on acting U.S. attorneys—appointments that are time-limited and, as recent court rulings have shown, legally vulnerable. The ruling that removed Habba from her post in New Jersey represented a significant setback, reinforcing limits on how long acting officials can serve without Senate confirmation.
Following that ruling, Attorney General Pam Bondi announced that Habba would transition into a senior advisory role within the Justice Department, overseeing U.S. attorneys nationwide. Bondi sharply criticized the court’s decision, accusing judges of politicizing the justice system and interfering with efforts to prosecute violent crime.
Bondi said the department would seek further appellate review and expressed confidence that the ruling would ultimately be overturned. If that happens, she added, Habba intends to return to her previous role in New Jersey.
https://TWITTER.com/Murray4DE/status/1999475044494532645
In the meantime, additional DOJ officials have been assigned expanded responsibilities to ensure continuity in that district. Similar stopgap measures may now be required in Delaware following Murray’s resignation.
Taken together, the developments underscore a growing institutional strain: a clash between executive authority, Senate customs, and judicial enforcement of appointment rules. For critics of the blue slip system, Murray’s resignation is further evidence that the tradition has outlived its usefulness. For defenders, it remains a necessary check on executive overreach.
What is clear is that the conflict has real-world consequences. Federal prosecutors oversee sensitive investigations, criminal prosecutions, and civil enforcement actions that depend on stable leadership. Repeated turnover and legal uncertainty, legal experts warn, can weaken morale and delay justice.
As the Senate considers whether to revisit its confirmation practices, and as courts continue to scrutinize interim appointments, the resignation of Julianne Murray may stand as a cautionary example of how procedural traditions—once meant to foster cooperation—can instead fuel paralysis in an increasingly polarized political environment.
Emily Johnson is a critically acclaimed essayist and novelist known for her thought-provoking works centered on feminism, women’s rights, and modern relationships. Born and raised in Portland, Oregon, Emily grew up with a deep love of books, often spending her afternoons at her local library. She went on to study literature and gender studies at UCLA, where she became deeply involved in activism and began publishing essays in campus journals. Her debut essay collection, Voices Unbound, struck a chord with readers nationwide for its fearless exploration of gender dynamics, identity, and the challenges faced by women in contemporary society. Emily later transitioned into fiction, writing novels that balance compelling storytelling with social commentary. Her protagonists are often strong, multidimensional women navigating love, ambition, and the struggles of everyday life, making her a favorite among readers who crave authentic, relatable narratives. Critics praise her ability to merge personal intimacy with universal themes. Off the page, Emily is an advocate for women in publishing, leading workshops that encourage young female writers to embrace their voices. She lives in Seattle with her partner and two rescue cats, where she continues to write, teach, and inspire a new generation of storytellers.
