ALBANY, N.Y. — Recently, President Donald Trump's attempt to place political loyalists in key federal prosecutor positions has faced significant legal challenges. Federal judges have declared that Trump's selected U.S. attorneys for various regions—including New Jersey, eastern Virginia, Nevada, and Los Angeles—were appointed unlawfully. This ongoing legal scrutiny is part of broader concerns regarding the validity of appointments made under his administration.
On a recent Thursday, a federal judge in New York was presented with arguments from Attorney General Letitia James. She alleges that the Trump administration manipulated legal procedures to appoint John Sarcone as the acting U.S. attorney for northern New York. James, representing the state’s interests, is contesting Sarcone’s authority to lead a Justice Department investigation into regulatory lawsuits she initiated against Trump and the National Rifle Association (NRA). This lawsuit is part of her broader challenge against what she claims are baseless prosecutions targeting Trump's opponents.
During the court session, attorney Hailyn Chen, representing James, asserted that Sarcone's lack of legitimate authority renders his actions, including subpoenas issued in the ongoing investigation, unlawful. Chen urged U.S. District Judge Lorna G. Schofield to disqualify Sarcone from both the investigation and his office due to his overstepping of lawful power. In contrast, Justice Department lawyers defended Sarcone's appointment, contending that disqualifying him would be “drastic and extreme.” They argue that Sarcone’s appointment was legitimate and the motion to block his subpoenas should thus be dismissed.
The courtroom debate underscores a larger legal conundrum over the unconventional methods employed by the Trump administration to appoint federal prosecutors who are perceived as unlikely to pass Senate confirmation. This legal battle follows a recent ruling by a federal judge in Virginia, who dismissed indictments against Letitia James and former FBI Director James Comey, asserting that the interim U.S. attorney responsible for those charges, Lindsey Halligan, was unlawfully appointed. An appeal from the Justice Department is anticipated following this decision.
Moreover, a federal appeals court ruled earlier this week that Alina Habba, Trump’s former personal lawyer, is disqualified from serving as New Jersey’s U.S. attorney. According to federal law, the president’s nominees for U.S. attorney require Senate confirmation, and temporary appointments made by the U.S. attorney general expire after 120 days. If that timeframe lapses, district judges have the authority to reappoint the interim U.S. attorney or select a new one, a rule that Sarcone’s appointment did not follow.
Sarcone was installed as the interim U.S. attorney in March under a temporary appointment by U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi. When the 120-day period concluded, judges in the district chose not to retain him. Subsequently, Bondi appointed Sarcone as a special attorney and then designated him as the first assistant U.S. attorney for the district. This maneuver has been labeled by Chen as an abuse of executive power.
The subpoenas issued by James seek documentation related to a civil case against Trump regarding alleged fraudulent business activities and records pertaining to ongoing litigation involving the NRA and its two senior executives. In court, Belliss maintained that the U.S. attorney general possesses broad discretionary powers to appoint attorneys within her department, arguing that Sarcone, even if not properly named as acting U.S. attorney, retains the ability to conduct grand jury investigations as a special attorney.
While these legal issues unfold in New York, similar challenges are occurring in Nevada, where a federal judge also ruled against the Trump administration’s choice for U.S. attorney. Additionally, a federal judge in Los Angeles disqualified the acting U.S. attorney after determining that his tenure exceeded the legally permitted duration.
