Ridenbaugh Press/Northwest

John McKay

We didn’t take more than ordinary notice last month when John McKay, the U.S. attorney for the Western Washington federal justice district, announced his resignation from that job (not with the plan of landing anywhere else in particular).

It was a little unusual in that McKay resigned effective the end of this month. And it coincided with a turndown on his application to become a federal judge. And the Seattle Times article on the departure only hinted that McKay’s resignation wasn’t his own idea, and left extremely vague what was: Nowhere in the story does McKay actually say why he’s leaving. There’s no new job on the horizon (though he’s doubtless plenty employable), and he doesn’t even cite the usual “family reasons.” The implication is that he is leaving because he was told to.

With that in mind, consider what is coinciding with McKay’s departure: The abrupt departure as probable ousters, within the last month, of seven or eight U.S. attorneys (at a minimum) around the nation.

California Senator Dianne Feinstein pulled some of this together in a speech today on the Senate floor. (She cited a U.S. attorney in Washington state, though not by name.) Her web site notes that in her comments there she “expressed concern about the fact that a number of U.S. Attorneys have been asked by the Department of Justice to resign their positions prior to the end of their terms and without cause. In a little noticed provision included in the Patriot Act reauthorization last year, the Administration’s authority to appoint interim U.S. Attorneys was greatly expanded. The law was changed so that if a vacancy arises the Attorney General may appoint a replacement for an indefinite period of time – thus completely avoiding the Senate confirmation process.”

During his tenure, McKay picked up positive marks for doing a professional job as U.S. attorney. One wonders what is considered, by the Department of Justice in the other Washington, preferable. But we may soon learn.