Fri Jan 09 09:40:00 UTC 2026: ### Headline: Judge Rules Acting U.S. Attorney Sarcone Served Unlawfully, Invalidating Subpoenas in Trump-Related Investigations

The Story:
A federal judge has ruled that acting U.S. Attorney John Sarcone III served unlawfully in the Northern District of New York. U.S. District Judge Lorna Schofield’s decision marks the fifth time a judge has found that a top prosecutor appointed during Pam Bondi’s tenure as Attorney General was unlawfully serving in their position due to the Justice Department’s attempts to circumvent the 120-day limit for acting U.S. attorneys whose nominations are pending Senate confirmation. The ruling arose from a case brought by New York Attorney General Letitia James, who sought to quash grand jury subpoenas issued by Sarcone targeting information related to civil fraud cases against President Donald Trump and the National Rifle Association.

Key Points:

  • Judge Lorna Schofield ruled that acting U.S. Attorney John Sarcone III served unlawfully.
  • The Justice Department allegedly attempted to circumvent the 120-day limit for acting U.S. attorneys.
  • This is the fifth time a judge has ruled against a prosecutor appointed by Attorney General Pam Bondi in this manner.
  • The ruling stems from a case where Sarcone issued subpoenas to the office of NY AG Letitia James related to cases involving President Donald Trump and the NRA.
  • Judge Schofield stated Sarcone “personally directed” the subpoenas and used his contested authority to target a political adversary of the President.
  • Similar rulings have occurred in New Jersey, Nevada, California, and the Eastern District of Virginia.
  • Former Trump attorney Lindsey Halligan, acting U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, also had her appointment deemed unlawful and charges she brought against James Comey and Letitia James were dismissed.

Critical Analysis:
The consistent pattern of judges ruling against acting U.S. Attorneys appointed during Bondi’s tenure, specifically in cases involving political adversaries of Donald Trump, strongly suggests a deliberate strategy by the Justice Department to bypass established legal procedures. The repeated attempts to circumvent the 120-day limit and the subsequent targeting of political opponents raise concerns about the politicization of the Justice Department and the potential abuse of power for partisan purposes.

Key Takeaways:

  • The Justice Department’s appointment practices are under intense legal scrutiny and being repeatedly challenged.
  • There are accusations of political motivations behind the investigations initiated by these acting U.S. Attorneys.
  • The judiciary is acting as a check on the executive branch, upholding the rule of law and preventing potential overreach.
  • The subpoenas issued by Sarcone are invalidated, hindering the federal investigation into James’ office.
  • The Justice Department is appealing these rulings, indicating a continued defense of its appointment practices.

Impact Analysis:

This event series has several long-term implications:

  • Erosion of Public Trust: The repeated findings of unlawful appointments and potential political motivations can erode public trust in the impartiality of the Justice Department.
  • Legal Precedent: These rulings set a legal precedent that could impact future appointments of acting U.S. Attorneys and the scope of their authority.
  • Political Polarization: The connection to President Trump and his political adversaries exacerbates political polarization and reinforces narratives of partisan abuse of power.
  • Impact on Investigations: The invalidated subpoenas may significantly hamper federal investigations into the cases initiated by New York Attorney General Letitia James.
  • DOJ Integrity: Could invite further scrutiny into the past adminstration and potentially lead to internal investigations and reforms within the Justice Department regarding appointment procedures and safeguards against politicization.

    Read More

Related News: