On January 8, 2026, a federal judge in New York delivered a sharp rebuke to the Trump administration’s handling of top federal prosecutor appointments, disqualifying John Sarcone III from his post as acting U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of New York. The decision, issued by U.S. District Judge Lorna Schofield, not only tossed out subpoenas Sarcone had issued to New York Attorney General Letitia James’ office but also underscored a growing judicial resistance to what many see as the administration’s attempts to sidestep the Senate confirmation process.
Judge Schofield’s ruling is the fifth in a string of decisions across the country where federal courts have found Trump-appointed acting U.S. attorneys were serving unlawfully. According to Politico, the judge wrote in her 24-page opinion that Sarcone “was not lawfully serving as Acting U.S. Attorney” when he issued the subpoenas in question. The heart of the matter, as laid out by Schofield, is that federal law sets clear limits on how long an interim U.S. attorney can serve without Senate confirmation—120 days. When Sarcone’s term expired and district judges refused to extend his tenure, the Department of Justice, led by Attorney General Pam Bondi, made a series of personnel moves and title changes to keep him in the job. But, as Schofield stated bluntly, “Federal law does not permit such a workaround.”
Sarcone’s actions while in office drew particular scrutiny. In August 2025, he issued two grand jury subpoenas to James’ office, seeking documents related to two highly charged cases: the attorney general’s civil fraud lawsuit against former President Trump and his business empire, and a separate civil lawsuit against the National Rifle Association (NRA). In cover letters, Sarcone disclosed that both sets of demands were part of ongoing federal criminal investigations. The judge noted that the subpoenas bore Sarcone’s name alone and that the requested documents were to be sent directly to him—a detail that, according to The New York Times, raised further questions about the legitimacy of his authority.
Letitia James, who has emerged as one of Trump’s most prominent legal adversaries, challenged the subpoenas on the grounds that Sarcone was unlawfully appointed. Judge Schofield agreed, ruling that his service “bypassed the statutory requirements that govern who may exercise the powers of a U.S. Attorney.” The judge was unsparing in her assessment, writing, “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.” She added, “Grand juries are ‘not meant to be the private tool of a prosecutor,’ much less one not lawfully appointed.”
The judge’s decision not only invalidated the subpoenas but also barred Sarcone from any further involvement in the investigations into James’ office. While Sarcone technically remains in charge of the Northern District of New York for now, Schofield’s ruling leaves open the possibility of his complete removal. The federal government, she noted, may seek to reissue the subpoenas—but only under the direction of a lawfully authorized attorney.
Sarcone’s controversial tenure is emblematic of a broader pattern seen during Trump’s second term. As Democracy Docket and AP reported, Sarcone is the fifth acting U.S. attorney installed by the administration to be disqualified by federal courts. In each case, the Justice Department relied on unusual tactics—shifting job titles, creating new positions, and appointing “special attorneys”—to keep loyalists in key posts after their interim terms had expired. These maneuvers, the courts have repeatedly found, violate both the letter and spirit of federal vacancy laws, which require Senate confirmation or, in some cases, appointment by district judges.
Similar rulings have come down in New Jersey, Nevada, California, and Virginia. In the case of the Eastern District of Virginia, Lindsey Halligan—another former Trump personal attorney—was found to be serving unlawfully as acting U.S. attorney. Halligan had brought criminal charges against James and former FBI Director James Comey, but those indictments were dismissed after a judge invalidated her appointment. The Justice Department is currently appealing that ruling, as well as others that have struck down its appointments.
The fallout from these judicial decisions has been significant. In December, New Jersey’s U.S. Attorney Alina Habba resigned following an appeals court decision upholding her disqualification. Delaware’s U.S. Attorney Julianne Murray also left her post, citing the Habba ruling. Despite these setbacks, the Justice Department has signaled it will continue to fight. A spokesperson said in a statement, as reported by Politico, that the department “will continue to fight and defend the President and the Attorney General’s authority to appoint their U.S. Attorneys.”
For Letitia James, the ruling represents a major legal and political victory. A spokesperson for her office described the decision as “an important win for the rule of law,” adding, “we will continue to defend our office’s successful litigation from this administration’s political attacks.” James’ office has been at the forefront of high-profile legal actions against Trump, including the civil fraud suit that resulted in the subpoenas at the center of this case. The judge’s order not only protects James from what many viewed as a politically motivated investigation but also sets a precedent for how aggressively the courts are willing to police the boundaries of executive power.
Sarcone’s appointment was controversial from the outset. According to Politico, he was a Republican lawyer with little prosecutorial experience and had unsuccessfully run for office several times. Early in his tenure, he attracted negative attention for administrative missteps, including listing a boarded-up building as his home address on a police affidavit. His office also became embroiled in a lawsuit brought by Maurene Comey, daughter of former FBI Director James Comey, who alleged she was illegally fired from her federal prosecutor position in Manhattan. Sarcone personally appeared at a hearing in that case on the same day Judge Schofield heard arguments over his own disqualification.
As the Trump administration’s efforts to install loyalists in key federal law enforcement roles continue to face stiff headwinds in the courts, the Sarcone case stands as a vivid illustration of the limits of executive power. The judiciary’s willingness to step in and enforce the rules of appointment—even in the face of political pressure—has sent a clear message: the checks and balances envisioned by the Constitution are alive and well.
With the Justice Department vowing to appeal and the administration’s critics celebrating another legal victory, the battle over who gets to wield the awesome powers of federal prosecution is far from over. But for now, at least in northern New York, those powers will not rest with John Sarcone.
