Court says prosecutor who subpoenaed Letitia James was unlawfully appointed

A federal appeals court ruled on Friday that the top federal prosecutor in the Northern District of New York, John Sarcone, was unlawfully serving in his role when he subpoenaed New York Attorney General Letitia James as part of two investigations into her activities last year. The decision, handed down by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit, marks a major legal challenge to the Trump administration’s efforts to bypass Senate confirmation requirements for federal prosecutors. The court’s 2-1 ruling found that Sarcone’s appointment in 2025 did not comply with the Federal Vacancies Reform Act (FVRA). According to the majority opinion, written by Judge Guido Calabresi, only the existing first assistant in the U.S. attorney’s office can be elevated to the acting role under the FVRA. Sarcone, however, was named first assistant months after the U.S. attorney position became vacant, making him ineligible for the acting role when he issued the subpoenas targeting James. Sarcone, a former campaign attorney for President Trump, was initially appointed as the interim U.S. attorney in the Northern District of New York in late 2024. His 120-day term expired in early 2025, after which judges in the district refused to extend his tenure. Then-Attorney General Pam Bondi subsequently appointed Sarcone as a special attorney and named him first assistant U.S. attorney. The Justice Department claimed this designation allowed Sarcone to act as acting U.S. attorney for 210 days. However, the appeals court rejected this argument. The majority held that the FVRA does not permit the elevation of a newly appointed deputy to the acting role unless they were already in place when the vacancy occurred. Since Sarcone was named first assistant after the vacancy arose, he was not lawfully authorized to serve as acting U.S. attorney when he issued the subpoenas. James, who was subpoenaed in August 2025 as part of probes into her office’s handling of investigations involving the National Rifle Association and former President Donald Trump, challenged the legality of Sarcone’s authority. She argued that his unlawful appointment made the subpoenas invalid and filed a lawsuit to quash them. The Justice Department countered that the “special attorney” title granted to Sarcone conferred subpoena powers and that he was lawfully serving as acting U.S. attorney. In January, a U.S. district judge had temporarily blocked James’s request to dismiss the subpoenas, allowing the process to continue while the case moved forward. Now, with the appeals court ruling against Sarcone, the Justice Department has vowed to appeal the decision directly to the Supreme Court. This sets the stage for a high-stakes legal battle over the extent of executive power in selecting federal prosecutors and whether the Trump administration has successfully circumvented congressional oversight through creative interpretations of existing statutes. The case highlights broader tensions within the judiciary regarding the legitimacy of appointments made without Senate confirmation. Legal experts say the outcome could influence future disputes over the authority of federal prosecutors and the limits of presidential discretion in staffing government agencies. As the administration prepares its next steps, the legal landscape surrounding the appointment and authority of federal prosecutors remains in flux.