NEW YORK — A federal appeals court has upheld a decision blocking Justice Department subpoenas directed at the office of New York Attorney General Letitia James, ruling that the federal prosecutor who obtained them was not lawfully serving as acting U.S. attorney at the time.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled 2-1 Friday that John A. Sarcone III had been improperly installed as acting U.S. attorney for the Northern District of New York when his office issued subpoenas tied to investigations involving James. The decision leaves the subpoenas quashed and prevents Sarcone from using the authority of acting U.S. attorney in the matters. (Reuters)
The Justice Department said it disagreed with the decision and intends to take the dispute to the Supreme Court, setting up a potentially significant fight over the administration’s authority to keep temporary federal prosecutors in office without Senate confirmation. (Washington Examiner)
The case has implications beyond New York because it centers on the Federal Vacancies Reform Act, the law governing how the executive branch may temporarily fill certain positions that ordinarily require presidential appointment and Senate confirmation.
Court Finds Appointment Violated Federal Law
Sarcone was initially appointed interim U.S. attorney for the Northern District of New York, which is based in Albany and covers a large portion of upstate New York.
His 120-day interim appointment later expired without Senate confirmation. After federal judges in the Northern District declined to extend his tenure, the Justice Department appointed him to other positions within the office, including first assistant U.S. attorney, and treated him as eligible to continue serving as acting U.S. attorney. (Times Union)
The Second Circuit rejected that approach.
Writing for the majority, Judge Guido Calabresi said the Federal Vacancies Reform Act permits the first assistant who is already serving when a vacancy occurs to automatically assume an acting position under the provision the Justice Department relied upon.
Sarcone did not meet that requirement because he was named first assistant after the vacancy had already existed.
“Text, structure, and history all point the same way,” Calabresi wrote in the decision. (CBS News)
Judge Maria Araújo Kahn joined the majority. Judge Michael Park dissented.
The appeals court affirmed an earlier ruling by a federal judge who found that Sarcone had not been lawfully serving as acting U.S. attorney and that actions he took under that authority could therefore be invalidated.
Subpoenas Involved Trump and NRA Cases
The disputed subpoenas were issued to James’ office in August 2025 as part of federal investigations examining the attorney general’s handling of two major New York cases.
One involved her office’s civil fraud case against Donald Trump and his business. The other concerned the attorney general’s investigation of the National Rifle Association. (Reuters)
James challenged the subpoenas in court, arguing in part that Sarcone did not possess the legal authority required to issue them.
The investigations have attracted national attention because James has been a prominent legal adversary of Trump. Her office brought the civil fraud case that resulted in a judgment against Trump and other defendants, though a New York appellate court later threw out the financial penalty while leaving portions of the underlying liability findings intact.
James has denied wrongdoing and has described federal investigations targeting her as politically motivated.
The appeals court’s ruling focused on Sarcone’s appointment rather than resolving broader claims about the motivations behind the Justice Department investigations.
No criminal charges resulted from the two subpoenas at issue in Friday’s decision. (Reuters)
Justice Department Plans Supreme Court Appeal
The Justice Department moved quickly to signal that the litigation is not over.
“We disagree with the court’s decision, and intend to take this case to the Supreme Court,” the department said following the ruling. (Washington Examiner)
A Supreme Court appeal could turn the New York dispute into a broader test of presidential authority over temporary appointments.
The Trump administration has faced similar legal challenges involving federal prosecutors elsewhere in the country. Appeals courts have also rejected appointment arrangements involving Trump-aligned prosecutors in other jurisdictions, raising questions about how the Justice Department has attempted to fill leadership positions when nominees have not been confirmed by the Senate. (KQ2 News)
The dispute highlights the tension between the executive branch’s need to keep federal offices functioning and Congress’ role in confirming senior government officials.
In his dissent, Park argued that federal vacancies law should permit the executive branch greater flexibility when confirmation disputes create prolonged vacancies.
The majority concluded that the statutory language imposed clearer limits.
A Significant Ruling for New York
The decision directly affects one of New York’s highest-ranking elected officials and the federal prosecutor’s office responsible for a wide territory stretching across northern New York.
James is New York’s 67th attorney general and serves as the state’s chief legal officer. Her office regularly represents New York in litigation involving federal agencies, major corporations and constitutional disputes. (New York State Attorney General)
Sarcone, meanwhile, has remained a central figure in the Northern District of New York despite the litigation surrounding his appointment.
The Second Circuit decision does not eliminate the Justice Department’s ability to investigate James or her office. Other lawfully authorized prosecutors could potentially pursue federal inquiries where legally justified.
But the ruling prevents the government from relying on Sarcone’s disputed status as acting U.S. attorney to enforce the subpoenas involved in this case.
Unless the Supreme Court intervenes, the subpoenas will remain blocked.
The case now moves toward a possible confrontation before the nation’s highest court over an issue that extends well beyond the political rivalry at its center: how far a presidential administration can go in filling powerful federal law-enforcement positions when the Senate has not confirmed its chosen officials.
