DOJ Relies More on Political Appointees in Major Cases Defending Trump Policies

Politically appointed lawyers at the US Department of Justice (DOJ) have submitted more than a dozen court filings in federal trial and appeals courts without the signatures of career attorneys, an unusual practice, according to Bloomberg Law, citing former department officials.

 

The growing involvement of lawyers from the DOJ’s so-called “front office” in major litigation marks a departure from previous administrations, former department lawyers said. The shift comes as the department faces substantial departures among its career workforce and pursues arguments that would expand executive power.

 

Political appointees have also frequently appeared in court to defend some of the second Trump administration’s most controversial actions, including the demolition of the White House’s East Wing to make way for a new ballroom and its policy of expanding immigration detention.

 

The practice of submitting briefs without the signatures of career attorneys was “extraordinarily rare in any administration”, including Donald Trump’s first term, said Jennifer Ricketts, a former branch director in the DOJ’s civil division who worked at the department for more than three decades.

 

She described the trend as troubling, arguing that it undermined the department’s institutional integrity and credibility.

 

The front office’s more prominent role in litigation comes amid concerns that President Donald Trump is politicising the department and redirecting its mission towards conservative causes. It also follows an exodus of career lawyers since Trump returned to the White House in January 2025.

 

Career attorneys may have contributed behind the scenes to briefs they did not sign. However, some submissions signed exclusively by political appointees have adopted language that differs from the tone typically used in government filings.

 

In one motion, Associate Attorney General Stanley Woodward accused a non-profit organisation that had sued the administration of suffering from “Trump Derangement Syndrome”.

 

In another brief, two politically appointed DOJ lawyers warned that the Kennedy Center faced “physical and financial ruin” unless Trump’s name was displayed on the building.

 

DOJ spokeswoman Kiersten Pels said career lawyers and political appointees worked jointly to defend and advance the interests of the United States and uphold government actions in court. She added that career attorneys submitted the majority of briefs.

 

It was not unusual under recent administrations for politically appointed lawyers to handle high-profile arguments involving government priorities, particularly before appeals courts. Political appointees may volunteer to present arguments because of their interest in litigation or to strengthen their professional credentials.

 

More Frequent Involvement

 

However, front office lawyers appear to be presenting arguments more frequently, said Stacey Young, a former DOJ civil division lawyer who could not recall a brief during her tenure that lacked career lawyers’ signatures.

 

The absence of career attorneys from the signature line could undermine the credibility of the government’s arguments, said Young, executive director of Justice Connection, an organisation that supports former department employees.

 

She said the practice risked creating the impression that the department was taking a political position and suggested that career employees had either been excluded or had reservations about the ethical or legal soundness of the government’s case.

 

Political appointees may sign briefs to shield career lawyers from involvement in politically sensitive cases, according to a person familiar with the matter.

 

The increased activity also reflects the larger number of political lawyers employed by the Trump administration compared with previous administrations, the person said. Political appointees can be recruited more quickly than non-partisan career attorneys, who undergo merit-based hiring procedures and typically serve across successive administrations.

 

During Trump’s first 17 months in office, the DOJ appointed at least 88 political officials to policymaking positions, including counsel roles, across the department’s main divisions. That was more than twice the number appointed during the same period of Joe Biden’s administration, according to an analysis of government data by Justice Connection.

 

Although the increase in briefs and court arguments led by political appointees is not without precedent, it represents a notable change, said Matthew Littleton, a former career environmental lawyer at the DOJ who later served as a deputy assistant attorney general under Biden.

 

Littleton, who left the department in January 2025, said it was difficult to determine the precise reasons for the shift without access to internal information. However, he noted that government agencies were placing the DOJ in difficult positions in a range of cases.

 

Paul Perkins of Morrison Foerster, who served as associate deputy attorney general until September 2026, said the civil division had delivered strong results in defending the United States and advancing enforcement priorities, with political leadership and career attorneys working collaboratively.

 

Politically Sensitive Cases

 

Several court filings signed exclusively by political appointees originated in DOJ divisions responsible for civil and environmental litigation.

 

In June, Woodward and a politically appointed counsel were the only attorneys listed on a brief filed in a federal court in Virginia opposing a challenge to the administration’s subsequently abandoned plan to establish a fund for alleged victims of government “weaponisation”.

 

Two other civil division counsels defended the administration’s attempt to send Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a Maryland man who was returned to the United States after being wrongfully deported to a prison in El Salvador, to a third country in a brief filed last year.

 

A front office lawyer serving on temporary assignment also signed two lawsuits against Michigan and Hawaii over plans to sue fossil fuel companies for climate-related damage. Both cases were dismissed.

 

Several opening briefs in appeals courts were likewise submitted without career lawyers listed among the signatories. The cases concerned the proposed White House ballroom, the renaming of the Kennedy Center and the dismissal of the head of Voice of America.

 

Stuart Gerson, who led the DOJ’s civil division under President George H. W. Bush, recalled relying heavily on career staff, whose experience and institutional knowledge he considered invaluable.

 

He said senior political officials benefited from the expertise of career lawyers who had extensive experience across a range of legal issues.

 

The practical consequences of allowing political appointees to shape the government’s legal arguments may be reflected in the positions taken in court, said Dennis Fan, director of Columbia Law School’s Appellate Litigation Clinic and a former DOJ lawyer.

 

He questioned whether political appointees would necessarily prioritise the interests of the United States over those of the administration they served, highlighting concerns about the distinction between defending the government and advancing a political agenda.