Federal Judge Rules Trump-Appointed Prosecutor’s Actions Void in New York Cases

A federal judge has determined that a Trump administration prosecutor in upstate New York was serving unlawfully, invalidating his actions in multiple cases including a criminal investigation involving tax return information.

U.S. District Judge Lorna G. Schofield issued two significant rulings on Thursday against John Sarcone, who had been acting as the U.S. attorney for the Northern District of New York. In her first decision, Schofield disqualified Sarcone from overseeing investigations into Democratic New York Attorney General Letitia James, declaring that Sarcone was not lawfully serving in his position and that “any of his past or future acts taken in that capacity are void or voidable.”

The same day, in a separate ruling, Schofield denied Sarcone’s application for a court order that would have directed the IRS to disclose tax return information for a limited liability company as part of a criminal investigation. The judge cited the same reasoning—that Sarcone lacked the authority to authorize such an application because he was not lawfully serving as acting U.S. attorney.

While the details of this tax investigation remain sealed, the ruling highlights the cascading effects of improper appointments on ongoing federal prosecutions.

The case is part of a broader pattern involving Trump-era prosecutors who were installed or maintained in their positions without obtaining the constitutionally required Senate confirmation. Legal experts note this represents a growing judicial consensus against such appointments.

“It does seem like more and more courts are coming around to this view,” said Carl Tobias, a professor of law at the University of Richmond, who observed that Schofield’s ruling aligns with previous judicial decisions across the country.

Similar rulings have emerged from federal courts in New Jersey, Nevada, and California, where judges determined that acting U.S. attorneys appointed through unconventional means by the Trump administration lacked proper legal authority to serve in their roles.

One high-profile example occurred in December when Alina Habba, Trump’s former personal attorney who had been appointed as the top federal prosecutor for New Jersey, resigned after an appeals court ruled she had been serving unlawfully.

The legal reasoning behind these decisions stems from constitutional requirements and federal laws governing the appointment of U.S. attorneys. Under normal circumstances, these powerful prosecutors must be nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate, or appointed temporarily through specific statutory mechanisms.

The Trump administration’s approach to filling these positions—often bypassing traditional confirmation processes—has now resulted in numerous judicial determinations that the prosecutors’ actions were invalid.

This growing judicial consensus creates significant complications for cases handled by these prosecutors. When a judge determines a prosecutor lacks authority, it can invalidate investigations, prosecutions, and court filings, potentially requiring cases to be restarted or abandoned altogether.

For the Northern District of New York, Schofield’s ruling creates immediate uncertainty about ongoing federal investigations and prosecutions initiated under Sarcone’s authority. The U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Northern District has not yet commented on the rulings or their potential impact on pending cases.

These cases highlight the broader tensions between executive branch appointment powers and judicial oversight, particularly when administrations attempt to work around traditional confirmation processes. As more courts rule against such appointments, the legal precedent grows stronger, potentially reshaping how future administrations approach these critical law enforcement positions.

The fallout from these rulings continues to reverberate through the federal justice system, creating potential challenges for both current prosecutors and defendants in affected cases.