On Tuesday, October 1, 2025, a federal judge delivered a decisive blow to the Trump administration’s approach to filling key Justice Department roles, disqualifying Nevada’s acting U.S. Attorney, Sigal Chattah, from overseeing multiple criminal cases. The move, which comes amid mounting legal and political controversy, underscores intensifying scrutiny over the administration’s efforts to sidestep Senate confirmation for top federal prosecutors.
U.S. District Judge David G. Campbell, presiding over the matter, sided with defense attorneys who argued that Chattah’s authority had expired in July, well past the 120-day legal limit for temporary appointments. In a sharply worded order, Campbell declared, “Given the Court’s conclusion that Ms. Chattah is not validly serving as Acting U.S. Attorney, her involvement in these cases would be unlawful.” He instructed government attorneys to file statements within seven days affirming that Chattah is no longer directing their work on the affected cases. However, Campbell stopped short of dismissing the indictments themselves, focusing his ruling on the legality of who is permitted to supervise federal prosecutions.
This episode is not an isolated incident but rather the second recent setback for the Trump administration’s strategy. In August, a federal judge ruled that Alina Habba, another Trump appointee serving as acting U.S. attorney in New Jersey, was serving without lawful authority after her own 120-day appointment lapsed. According to Reuters, these rulings have spotlighted the administration’s use of a string of temporary appointments, a maneuver that critics say is designed to bypass the Senate’s constitutional role in confirming U.S. attorneys—a process that typically requires bipartisan support.
Federal law is clear on the matter: if a permanent U.S. attorney is not nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate within 120 days, federal judges of the district court may appoint an interim to serve until the vacancy is filled. Judge Campbell, referencing the Federal Vacancies Reform Act of 1998, emphasized that Congress intended to prevent the executive branch from unilaterally installing its preferred candidates in powerful prosecutorial roles. “The procedure used by the government to appoint Ms. Chattah was never intended by Congress,” Campbell wrote, as reported by the Associated Press.
Chattah’s appointment has been contentious from the outset. A conservative lawyer and former chair of the Nevada Republican National Committee, she faced fierce opposition from Nevada’s Democratic Senators Catherine Cortez Masto and Jacky Rosen. Both senators publicly declared their intent to block her if the administration sought to make her appointment permanent, citing her record as an election denier and her support for actions they deemed extreme. Senator Cortez Masto stated, “By bypassing the Senate and naming Sigal Chattah as an ‘acting’ U.S. attorney, it’s clear the Trump administration knows Ms. Chattah is unconfirmable. This unprecedented maneuver sets a dangerous standard and risks holding up critical criminal cases just so that President Trump can play political games. At the end of the day, my position remains the same: Sigal Chattah is unfit for this role.” Senator Rosen echoed these concerns, calling the appointment “an outrageous attempt by the Trump Administration,” and urging the legal system “to immediately remove her.”
Chattah’s career has been marked by high-profile, often polarizing legal battles. She previously represented Nevada churches challenging the state’s COVID-19 restrictions, arguing that the rules unfairly targeted religious institutions compared to casinos and other secular venues. In 2022, she ran unsuccessfully for Nevada attorney general as a Republican, losing to incumbent Democrat Aaron Ford. During that campaign, she drew controversy for inflammatory remarks about Ford and for her outspoken views on transgender rights, which critics and civil rights advocates condemned as offensive and divisive.
Chattah has also been at the center of disputes over the 2020 presidential election. She represented one of six Nevada Republican Party members accused of submitting false certificates to Congress, declaring Donald Trump the winner in Nevada despite official results to the contrary. According to Nevada Current, Chattah has actively sought to exonerate her former client and has requested the Department of Justice to investigate the 2020 election, expressing hope that such an inquiry would aid Republican efforts to win a Congressional seat currently held by Democrat Steven Horsford. Legal experts, such as Professor Kathleen Clark of Washington University in St. Louis, have raised concerns that Chattah’s actions may violate impartiality regulations, given her partisan background and advocacy on behalf of clients accused of election-related wrongdoing.
The controversy over Chattah’s appointment is part of a broader pattern that critics say reflects the Trump administration’s willingness to test the boundaries of executive power. Only two of President Trump’s second-term U.S. attorney picks have been confirmed by the Senate, with the rest serving in acting or interim capacities. The administration’s reliance on temporary appointments has drawn warnings from legal scholars, former judges, and defense attorneys. In July, 116 former jurists from across the United States sent a letter urging Nevada’s federal judges not to entrust Chattah with authority, expressing fears that she would misuse the role.
Political tensions have only heightened as the Department of Justice, now led by Attorney General Pam Bondi, faces accusations of being weaponized for political ends. Recent events have added fuel to these claims: former FBI Director James Comey was charged with lying to Congress in a case filed days after President Trump publicly urged Bondi to prosecute him. Trump has also called for the prosecution of New York Attorney General Letitia James, who successfully sued him for fraud, and his pressure reportedly contributed to the resignation of a top federal prosecutor in Virginia.
Through it all, Chattah has maintained that her approach to law enforcement is nonpartisan. In an August interview with KLAS-TV, she insisted, “We prosecute the crime, not the criminal. Period. End of story. It’s a non-partisan issue. Whether you’re a Republican or a Democrat, or you know, you’re legally here, illegally here, whatever your crime is, we prosecute the criminal.” Yet, her critics remain unconvinced, pointing to her partisan past and public statements as evidence of bias.
Chattah’s disqualification does not immediately resolve the larger questions surrounding the Trump administration’s appointment practices. While the court’s order prevents her from participating in or supervising the prosecution of pending cases, it leaves open the issue of how future vacancies will be filled and whether similar challenges will arise in other jurisdictions. For now, the legal battles continue, and the debate over the politicization of the Justice Department shows no sign of abating.
As the dust settles in Nevada, the ramifications of Judge Campbell’s ruling are likely to echo beyond the Silver State, serving as a cautionary tale for those who would test the limits of the law in pursuit of political advantage.
