A federal appeals court ruled 2-1 on Friday that John A. Sarcone III was unlawfully serving as acting U.S. Attorney for New York’s Northern District when he issued subpoenas targeting the office of New York Attorney General Letitia James. The Second Circuit found that his continued service after the expiration of his interim appointment violated the Federal Vacancies Reform Act.
The decision upholds a January ruling by U.S. District Judge Lorna Schofield that invalidated the subpoenas and barred Sarcone from further involvement in the related investigations. The Justice Department has said it intends to appeal the case to the U.S. Supreme Court, potentially turning the dispute into a significant test of how temporary U.S. Attorney appointments can be made without Senate confirmation.
How Sarcone’s Appointment Came Under Scrutiny
Sarcone was named interim U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of New York in March 2025 after the previous Senate-confirmed officeholder stepped down. Under federal law, such interim appointments last 120 days. That term ended on July 14, 2025.
When judges in the district declined to extend his appointment, the Justice Department moved Sarcone into other roles, including first assistant U.S. attorney and special attorney, and delegated to him the full duties of the U.S. Attorney’s office. Sarcone then obtained grand jury subpoenas seeking records from James’ office about civil lawsuits she had brought against Donald Trump and his family business and against the National Rifle Association.
James’ office challenged the subpoenas, arguing Sarcone lacked lawful authority. Judge Schofield agreed in January 2026, finding that the procedural steps used to keep him in place after the interim period ended amounted to an unlawful workaround.
What the Appeals Court Decided
In a 39-page majority opinion, Judge Guido Calabresi, joined by Judge Maria Araújo Kahn, held that the Federal Vacancies Reform Act allows only a first assistant already serving in that role when a vacancy arises to automatically assume acting authority. Sarcone was not in that position when the vacancy occurred.
The majority further ruled that the broad delegation of the U.S. Attorney’s duties to Sarcone under other titles was an improper attempt to circumvent the vacancies law’s exclusivity provision. “To install someone in a vacant office through a general delegation authority that [federal statute] expressly forbids is to install an acting officer by another name,” Calabresi wrote.
Because Sarcone lacked authority under either theory, the court affirmed the order quashing the subpoenas and disqualifying him from the investigations.
Judge Michael Park dissented.
Why the Ruling Matters Beyond One Case
U.S. Attorneys exercise significant prosecutorial power. The Constitution and federal statutes generally require presidential nomination and Senate confirmation for permanent appointments, with limited temporary mechanisms for vacancies. Courts have increasingly scrutinized efforts to extend interim authority beyond statutory limits.
This is at least the third time an appeals court has rejected similar appointment practices in the current administration. The Second Circuit’s decision reinforces that the Federal Vacancies Reform Act sets strict boundaries and that creative title changes or delegations cannot expand those limits.
The subpoenas at issue sought information tied to high-profile civil cases. No charges have been filed against James, who has denied wrongdoing and described the inquiries as politically motivated. The court’s ruling does not decide the merits of any investigation. It simply holds that the official who sought the subpoenas did not have lawful authority to do so at the time.
Next Steps and the Path to the Supreme Court
The Justice Department has publicly stated its disagreement with the ruling and its intention to seek review by the Supreme Court. If the high court takes the case, it could clarify the outer bounds of the vacancies statute and the Appointments Clause in the context of U.S. Attorney offices.
For now, the Second Circuit’s decision stands. The subpoenas are invalid, and Sarcone is barred from exercising the authority he claimed as acting U.S. attorney in these matters. The broader question of how temporary leadership of federal prosecutors’ offices can be structured without Senate confirmation remains unresolved and is likely headed for further litigation.