Denise Cheung, the head of the criminal division at the U.S. attorney’s office in Washington, D.C., has resigned following a decision to defy a directive from her department's leadership.

Cheung’s resignation marks a growing wave of departures within the Department of Justice as dissent surfaces over leadership directives, as the Daily Caller reports.

The high-powered lawyer announced her resignation in an email to her colleagues on Tuesday. Her decision came as a result of refusing to implement a directive issued by leadership at the Department of Justice (DOJ).

Cheung has been a prominent figure in the DOJ, a position where she has served through multiple administrations.

Unexpected Change in DOJ Leadership

Cheung's resignation coincides with the nomination of Ed Martin, who has been chosen by President Donald Trump to lead the office as the U.S. attorney.

Martin has already been acting as the interim U.S. attorney. His nomination on Monday adds a significant shift in the office's leadership landscape.

Cheung, in her farewell email, emphasized her commitment to the oath she took as an Assistant U.S. Attorney (AUSA). She highlighted her dedication to upholding the Constitution and expressed pride in the integrity with which her colleagues perform their duties.

“When I started as an AUSA, I took an oath of office to support and defend the Constitution,” Cheung stated, reflecting on her career, which has spanned several administrations. She acknowledged the consistent integrity shown by her colleagues in their daily responsibilities.

Leadership Resignations Amid Legal Directives

Cheung's departure follows a series of resignations among DOJ officials earlier this month. This trend began with the resignation of Danielle Sassoon, the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York. Sassoon left her position to protest directives she felt compromised her ability to prosecute federal crimes justly.

Seven DOJ officials have stepped down in February alone due to controversial instructions involving the dismissal of charges against New York Mayor Eric Adams. This move has underscored a growing tension within the department regarding prosecutorial independence and ethical responsibilities.

Sassoon, who was the first to resign under these circumstances, expressed her concern that dismissing a significant indictment was contrary to her obligations.

She felt it interfered with her responsibility "to prosecute federal crimes without fear or favor." This sentiment is increasingly echoing across the department's ranks.

Departmental Responses Awaited

Despite the resignations and controversy surrounding these directives, the Department of Justice and the D.C. Attorney’s Office have not yet issued an official comment. The silence from these key offices has fueled further speculation and concern among legal circles and the broader public.

These recent developments highlight a critical moment for the DOJ, as internal dissent regarding legal directives continues to unfold. The demands for ethical and independent prosecution are becoming an ongoing topic of discussion, not only within the agency but also nationwide.

The evolving situation raises questions about the potential impact on the DOJ's future operations and the morale within its ranks. The nomination of Martin may prove to be a pivotal moment in shaping the future direction of the office amid these uncertainties.

Implications for DOJ's Future Operations

With the DOJ remaining tight-lipped, the focus now shifts to how the newly nominated Ed Martin will navigate these challenges. As he steps into the role of U.S. Attorney, it is yet to be seen how he will address the underlying issues prompting these resignations.

The series of resignations, particularly from high-profile positions, underscores a critical crossroads for ensuring transparency and justice within the department. The nomination of Ed Martin brings a new element of unpredictability to the situation.

The resignation of influential figures like Denise Cheung serves as a reminder of the complex interplay between legal obligations and leadership directives that can sometimes lead to conflicting priorities within a justice-focused institution.