Andrew Boutros, appointed as the interim U.S. attorney for Chicago, has expressed his commitment to fill the role with sincerity, regardless of whether his tenure is brief or extended.
Boutros was selected by Attorney General Pam Bondi, emphasizing his intent to perform diligently during his time in office.
However, the path forward for Boutros may not solely hinge on traditional political avenues, as the influence of Chicago’s federal judges could play a significant role in determining his future.
Given Bondi’s appointment, Boutros is limited to a four-month term. With nearly half of that time elapsed, the U.S. District Court has the authority to appoint a permanent U.S. attorney if Boutros’s term concludes without Senate confirmation for a new nominee.
While the court is under no obligation to select Boutros for this position, the appointed figure could serve until the Senate confirms a presidential nominee, complicating the power dynamics in play.
Lauren Mattioli, a political science assistant professor at Boston University, notes the potential challenges of this process, questioning whether a court-appointed U.S. attorney could be dismissed by the president.
Mattioli states, “The only thing that can stop a bench appointment is someone getting through the Senate.”
Since 2017, there has not been a confirmed U.S. attorney in Chicago, with the previous nominee, April Perry, facing opposition from then-Senator JD Vance who took issue with Trump’s now-resolved indictments.
Although Trump could propose a candidate for Senate confirmation, success hinges on appeasing Illinois’ two Democratic senators, Dick Durbin and Tammy Duckworth, due to the tradition of home-state senators having a major say in such appointments.
The partisan atmosphere in Washington makes this a precarious endeavor, particularly with Durbin recently remarking on potential holds for nominees, echoing the political climate’s effect on local governance.
Interestingly, Boutros was not among the names presented to the White House by Republican U.S. Rep. Darin LaHood, who led this year’s search for a U.S. attorney, marking Boutros’s office as distinct from typical appointments.
In Massachusetts, a precedent has been set where the federal court appointed Leah Foley as U.S. attorney, a move that took effect four months after her appointment by the acting attorney general, showcasing the variability of these appointments.
Allowing the court to make a selection could be seen as a risky move for a president, particularly in politically charged environments such as Chicago.
But, as Mattioli suggests, a savvy president might recognize the advantages of such a strategy when their preferred candidates risk being blocked by state senators.
The Chicago U.S. attorney role has taken center stage amid ongoing controversies surrounding the Justice Department throughout Trump’s second term, which has seen accusations of politicization of the typically independent agency.
Chicago itself has recently been embroiled in legal conflicts, such as a civil rights investigation linked to the administration of Mayor Brandon Johnson, along with lawsuits claiming interference with federal immigration enforcement by local officials.
Trump initiated significant changes in Chicago governance by pardoning former Governor Rod Blagojevich and commuting the sentence of Larry Hoover, illustrating the broader implications of his administration’s stance on criminal justice.
The U.S. attorney’s office in Chicago is pivotal in addressing serious issues such as public corruption, gang violence, and financial crimes, but has seen its staffing decrease from about 130 prosecutors a decade ago to roughly 100 today.
The office’s reputation for fighting corruption has included high-profile cases that resulted in convictions for influential politicians, marking a shift in political accountability in a city long plagued by corruption.
Since taking office on April 7, Boutros has not yet introduced major policy changes. On April 25, the office decided to withdraw its request for a $3.1 million forfeiture judgment against Madigan, who is awaiting sentencing.
Boutros has noted that his focus includes violence, drug cartels, human trafficking, child exploitation, and illegal immigration—all areas intertwined with public safety concerns.
He acknowledged that the priorities set forth by the presidential administration guide the office’s agenda, upholding the view of executive influence in local prosecutorial decisions.
Mattioli’s research indicates that non-traditional appointments, such as Boutros’s, are on the rise and often reflect the administration’s policy goals more closely than typical nominees confirmed by the Senate.
This may lead to court-appointed attorneys filing cases that align more directly with the sitting president’s agenda and priorities, indicating a strategic connection between the judicial appointment process and executive power.
The law permits a court-appointed U.S. attorney to remain in office “until the vacancy is filled,” which raises questions about the extent of presidential authority over these appointees.
Mattioli draws parallels to the notable case of Geoffrey Berman, former U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York, who faced pressure from the Trump administration to resign despite having been appointed through a similar judicial process.
Berman’s insistence on remaining until a Senate-confirmed successor was in place highlights tensions between judicial autonomy and executive power in appointing U.S. attorneys.
While court appointments remain a less visible method of placing U.S. attorneys in office, the implications of such decisions are critical.
In Massachusetts, federal judges have publicly stated their decisions, showcasing transparency in the process, unlike the situation in Chicago, where the judges are limited in commenting on ongoing matters.
Federal judges in Chicago, predominantly nominated by Democratic administrations, may have substantial connections within the legal community, potentially influencing their choices in appointing a new U.S. attorney.
However, as Mattioli emphasizes, this arrangement is not by design nor a typical exercise of judicial power, which adds a layer of complexity to the appointment process.
With appointments like Boutros’s becoming increasingly common, Mattioli underscores that failures within traditional nomination processes often lead to a disconnect between executive intentions and judicial appointments.
In a landscape characterized by political friction, the future prospects for Boutros and the U.S. attorney role in Chicago remain uncertain, entirely dependent on forthcoming political machinations and the eventual Senate confirmation of a new nominee.
image source from：https://chicago.suntimes.com/politics/2025/05/30/andrew-boutros-interim-us-attorney-chicago-judges-role-pam-bondi
