right, but my understanding (erroneous, seemingly) was that, although part of the cabinet/administration, the us attorney general was supposed to act to enforce the law, independently of what the president, who appoints the attorney general, wants (though the president can fire the attorney general).

The role of the entire Executive Branch is to enforce the law. Being a Cabinet position, the Attorney General, like all other Cabinet members, is nominated by the President, and then approved by the Senate.

You are correct that in the majority of States, the Attorney General is elected and is usually an independent office that does not take orders from the Governor. However, at the Federal Level, the opposite is true.

All departments in the Executive Branch take their orders from the President; so yes, the President can order the AG to, or not to, prosecute or appeal.

the fact that the attorney general is nominated by the president is in contrast to the numerous states (for instance, my own, that of new york, which is no particular government model) where the office holder (pun not intended) is elected. but the role of the office remains the same. i don’t think for instance, it’s possible for a president to tell the doj which suits to defend, appeal, etc. care to share your opinions?

[I]sn’t the doj supposed to act independently?

The Department of Justice is a division of the Executive Branch.

It is not part of the Judicial Branch, which is independent and co-equal with the Executive (and Legislative) Branch.

The Attorney General is the head of the Justice Department. What Eric Holder determines to be policy, is policy.

Further, the DOJ is part of the Administration and is subject to the policies of the Administration. Holder, like all department heads, serves at the will of the President.

The DOJ is not a separate entity that is independent of the Executive Branch of government.