Providing an Order of Succession Within the Department of Justice

Background

Executive Order 13557 established a clear order of succession for the office of the Attorney General within the Department of Justice (DOJ). This protocol was important for ensuring continuity of leadership and stability within the DOJ in circumstances where both the Attorney General and the highest-ranking officers were incapacitated. By designating United States Attorneys from key federal districts—such as the Eastern District of Virginia, the District of Minnesota, and the District of Arizona—it provided a geographically diverse and legally proficient cadre of leaders who were well-versed in federal litigation and prosecutorial responsibilities, thereby bolstering emergency preparedness.

The executive order had a unifying effect across various DOJ departments and stakeholders, as it clarified the hierarchy and criteria under which DOJ leadership would transition roles during unforeseen events. This clarity effectively minimized the potential for intra-departmental disputes over succession, thus allowing DOJ's different divisions to focus on maintaining operational workflow without the distraction of succession-related uncertainties. Such continuity was crucial, especially in high-stakes moments that demanded rapid legal decision-making and coordination with other branches of government.

Beyond internal DOJ impact, this order also brought an ancillary benefit to other law enforcement and judiciary stakeholders by augmenting reassurance of institutional preparedness. Federal judges, law enforcement agencies, and even international partners relied on the DOJ's leadership stability for comprehensive policy enforcement, extending the order's influence beyond its immediate scope. It reinforced the federal government's commitment to rule-of-law continuity, presumably affecting law enforcement strategies and administrative processes positively during periods of leadership transition.

Reason for Revocation

The revocation of this order in January 2017, on the cusp of a presidential transition, was part of a broader administrative reform, possibly driven by the incoming administration’s desire to assert its control over key federal appointments and succession protocols. By stripping away Obama-era directives, the forthcoming administration aimed to establish its own structures and protocols that might have aligned more closely with its governance philosophy and objectives. Such changes can be interpreted as attempts to centralize decision-making and ensure that executive branch operations were fully synchronized with the new leadership’s priorities.

This decision emerged amid ideological shifts that sought to reduce reliance on predetermined orders of succession, potentially reflecting a broader preference for flexibility over hierarchy in federal appointments. Such fluidity would afford the executive branch more discretionary power in filling positions, potentially with individuals more aligned with its own values or perspectives. This action dovetailed with a preference for real-time decision-making rather than adherence to inherited frameworks.

Part of the motivation also likely included reevaluating the roles and responsibilities of U.S. Attorneys, especially in strategically sensitive districts. With each administration having different priorities, such as a stronger focus on immigration control or adjusting the mechanisms for national security, revoking and replacing such orders allowed for more tailored approaches to emerging challenges, aligning personnel and strategies more closely with such priorities.

This revocation should not be viewed in isolation but rather as a strategic maneuver that was part of a larger effort to reconfigure succession frameworks across various federal agencies. It was indicative of a broader ideology emphasizing flexibility and executive discretion in federal governance, aligning with attempts to reorient the structure and policies of the DOJ.

Winners

The primary beneficiaries of the executive order's revocation were likely those within the new administration who prioritized increased control over federal appointments. By eliminating predetermined succession orders, the administration could appoint individuals it deemed more aligned with its values, potentially facilitating swifter policy implementation. This latitude in appointments would prove advantageous for policymakers eager to pursue a specific agenda without being constrained by previous administrations' predetermined hierarchies.

Political appointees with close ties to the incoming administration also stood to benefit as they could ascend to critical roles more readily. These individuals might have been strategically positioned to drive reforms across the DOJ, redirecting its focus to align with the administration’s priorities, be it in areas like immigration enforcement, cybercrime, or white-collar crime prosecution.

Federal districts not previously ranked within the succession list might have seen an advantageous recalibration, as new focal points were identified, reflecting shifting enforcement priorities. These districts could become central players in the DOJ’s operational landscape as succession plans were re-evaluated for responsiveness to emerging legal and political challenges.

Losers

Conversely, this revocation introduced some uncertainties that may not have sat well with career DOJ officials preferring stability within the department's hierarchical structures. With succession plans subject to reevaluation, established leaders in the previously designated districts might have found their standing in the federal judicial framework diminished, affecting their influence and operational certainty.

Critics of the revocation could argue that it undermined continuity and preparedness, critical elements for a well-functioning justice system. Uncertainty in leadership roles could lead to vulnerability in swift decision-making during crises, with potential negative implications for law enforcement operations at all government levels. This could particularly impact efforts requiring robust DOJ leadership, such as coordinated federal responses to domestic or international legal issues.

Civil rights advocates and defenders of judicial independence might have viewed the revocation skeptically. With the increased power given to the administration to influence DOJ leadership, there was potential concern over politicization—a matter critical to maintaining public faith in the DOJ's apolitical and impartial justice delivery. This concern could extend to communities reliant on the DOJ’s protections, especially at a time when trust in federal law enforcement was ostensibly under scrutiny.