Federal Judge Disqualifies Trump-Appointed Prosecutor in Investigations Against New York AG

A federal judge has ruled that a Trump administration prosecutor lacks legal authority to oversee investigations into New York Attorney General Letitia James, marking another judicial rebuke of the administration’s controversial appointments to top law enforcement positions.

U.S. District Judge Lorna G. Schofield on Thursday blocked subpoenas requested by John Sarcone, who had been serving as the acting U.S. attorney for the Northern District of New York. In her ruling, Schofield determined that the Department of Justice failed to follow proper statutory procedure after judges declined to extend Sarcone’s tenure last year.

“When the Executive branch of government skirts restraints put in place by Congress and then uses that power to subject political adversaries to criminal investigations, it acts without lawful authority,” Schofield wrote in her decision. “Subpoenas issued under that authority are invalid.”

The judge’s ruling effectively invalidates Sarcone’s past and future actions in his capacity as acting U.S. attorney, declaring them “void or voidable” because they “rest on authority Mr. Sarcone does not lawfully have.”

The case stems from Sarcone’s issuance of subpoenas seeking information about lawsuits James filed against Republican President Donald Trump and the National Rifle Association. James, a Democrat, has claimed Trump committed fraud in his business dealings, while separately targeting the NRA and some of its former leaders in another lawsuit.

James challenged Sarcone’s authority, arguing that the inquiry into her lawsuits represented part of a broader campaign of baseless investigations against Trump’s perceived political enemies. Her office called Thursday’s ruling “an important win for the rule of law” and vowed to “continue to defend our office’s successful litigation from this administration’s political attacks.”

Justice Department attorneys had argued that Sarcone’s appointment was proper and the subpoenas valid. In response to the ruling, the department stated it “will continue to fight and defend the President and the Attorney General’s authority to appoint their U.S. Attorneys.”

The case highlights a pattern of judicial rejections of Trump administration appointments to key federal prosecutor positions. Last month, the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a lower court’s disqualification of Alina Habba from serving as New Jersey’s top federal prosecutor. In November, a federal judge dismissed criminal cases against former FBI Director James Comey after concluding that prosecutor Lindsey Halligan had been unlawfully appointed as interim U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia.

Similar rulings have occurred in Nevada and California, where federal judges disqualified Trump’s appointees to U.S. attorney positions after finding procedural violations.

The circumstances of Sarcone’s appointment highlight the administration’s attempts to bypass traditional confirmation procedures. U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi initially appointed Sarcone as interim U.S. attorney in March. When his 120-day term expired, district judges declined to extend his appointment—a critical step in the standard process.

In response, Bondi appointed Sarcone as a special attorney and designated him first assistant U.S. attorney, moves the administration claimed allowed him to serve as acting U.S. attorney. Judge Schofield rejected this maneuver, writing: “Federal law does not permit such a workaround.”

Sarcone’s connections to Trump add another dimension to the case. He previously served on Trump’s legal team during the 2016 presidential campaign and worked for the U.S. General Services Administration during Trump’s first term.

Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer praised the ruling, stating: “The people of the Northern District of New York deserve a qualified, independent prosecutor, not a political loyalist.”

While the ruling blocks the specific subpoenas Sarcone issued targeting James, Schofield noted that the federal government could reissue them under the direction of a lawfully authorized attorney.

Legal experts suggest the ruling’s impact may be limited to Sarcone’s direct actions rather than affecting all operations of the prosecutor’s office. Joshua Naftalis, a former Manhattan federal prosecutor now in private practice, noted that while “it’s always a big deal when judges say that the U.S. attorney doesn’t have the authority,” subpoenas typically involve multiple prosecutors, potentially limiting broader disruptions to ongoing investigations.