Judge Schofield Declares Sarcone’s Acting Role Unlawful The Manhattan federal judge, Lorna G. Schofield, found that John Sarcone was not lawfully serving as acting U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of New York, rendering any actions he took in that capacity void or voidable. She based the decision on statutory requirements that were not met when the Justice Department used a series of interim and special designations after judges declined to appoint a successor. The ruling directly impacts two criminal investigations tied to New York Attorney General Letitia James. [1][2]

Subpoenas Targeting James’ Lawsuits Declared Invalid The judge quashed grand‑jury subpoenas Sarcone issued in August that sought state records related to James’s civil suits against Donald Trump, the Trump Organization, and the National Rifle Association. Because the subpoenas were issued under Sarcone’s unauthorized authority, the court ordered them void and barred him from further participation in those probes. Both outlets note that the subpoenas were a key tool in the federal component of James’s broader litigation strategy. [1][2]

Appointment History Violated Statutory Limits Sarcone’s path to the post began with an interim appointment by former Attorney General Pam Bondi in March, followed by a special‑attorney designation after his 120‑day term expired and judges failed to name a successor. The court concluded that this chain of designations did not satisfy the law governing acting U.S. Attorney appointments, constituting executive overreach. The decision aligns with recent rulings in other districts that have rejected similar Trump‑era appointment maneuvers. [2][1]

Broader Political and Legal Context Highlighted Letitia James has pursued high‑profile civil actions against Trump and the NRA, while also facing a dismissed federal indictment in Virginia that hinged on an invalid interim prosecutor. The AP article frames the ruling as part of a nationwide trend of courts disqualifying Trump‑appointed prosecutors, whereas CNN emphasizes the systemic executive‑branch abuse of appointment powers. Both sources underscore the ruling’s significance for the balance between state investigations and federal prosecutorial authority. [1][2]