ALBANY, N.Y. — The efforts by former President Donald Trump to place loyalists in key federal prosecutor roles are facing significant legal challenges, as multiple judges have recently ruled that his appointed U.S. attorneys in New Jersey, eastern Virginia, Nevada, and Los Angeles were serving unlawfully. The latest legal battle centers around John Sarcone, the acting U.S. attorney for northern New York, whose appointment is being scrutinized by New York Attorney General Letitia James.
In a court hearing held Thursday, James argued that Sarcone’s appointment was based on a misinterpretation of the law. Her challenge focuses on his authority to oversee a Justice Department investigation concerning lawsuits she has initiated against Trump and the National Rifle Association. According to James, the subpoenas issued as part of Sarcone’s investigation are invalid, citing that he lacks the legitimate authority to act in his current role.
Her attorney, Hailyn Chen, emphasized that Sarcone “exercised power that he did not lawfully possess,” and called for his disqualification from both the investigation and the office. In contrast, Justice Department lawyers contend Sarcone was appointed correctly and argued that removing him from the position would be extreme and unwarranted.
The ongoing legal disputes reflect broader contentions about the unconventional strategies employed by the Trump administration to appoint prosecutors who might be unlikely to gain Senate confirmation. Recently, a judge in Virginia dismissed indictments against James and former FBI Director James Comey, stating that the interim U.S. attorney who brought the charges had been unlawfully appointed. This ruling adds to the momentum of legal challenges regarding these expedited appointments.
Under federal law, U.S. attorney nominees must receive Senate confirmation, and temporary appointments by the attorney general expire after 120 days. If that period passes without a permanent appointment, judges can either retain the interim U.S. attorney or select a successor. In Sarcone’s case, since he was appointed as an interim U.S. attorney, his term lapsed without subsequent approval from judges in the district, leading to the contention over his special appointment by U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi.
James’ investigation is pertinent to ongoing civil cases against Trump that allege fraud in his business dealings. The subpoenas issued by Sarcone seek documents related to these broader issues, highlighting the intersecting legal complexities surrounding Trump’s business practices and his political alliances.
Overall, this case epitomizes the intricate web of legal challenges facing Trump and his associates, as well as the implications of appointing loyalists within the federal legal system. With legal decisions in favor of accountability becoming more prevalent, this situation serves as a critical reminder of the checks and balances integral to the justice system.