Judge Declares John Sarcone’s Acting U.S. Attorney Appointment Unlawful Amid DOJ Politicization Concerns

In a significant legal development that underscores the ongoing tension between executive authority and judicial oversight, U.S. District Judge Lorna Schofield recently declared that John Sarcone, the acting U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of New York, has been serving unlawfully. This ruling, issued on January 8, 2026, by the Obama-appointed judge, not only disqualifies Sarcone from his post but also nullifies subpoenas his office had issued to New York Attorney General Letitia James. The decision casts a stark light on the Trump administration’s controversial tactics in appointing federal prosecutors and fuels widespread concerns about the politicization of the Department of Justice (DOJ).

Sarcone’s tenure has been contentious from its inception, marked by a series of unconventional maneuvers designed to circumvent established legal processes. Originally appointed as a temporary U.S. attorney, his 120-day term expired without Senate confirmation, a standard procedure for such high-level positions. When district judges in northern New York declined to appoint him to continue in the role, Attorney General Pam Bondi stepped in, appointing Sarcone as a ‘special attorney’ with an ‘indefinite’ term. This move, as highlighted by Politico, was seen as a clear attempt to keep a loyalist in a critical federal law enforcement office, sidestepping both congressional review and judicial approval. Critics also pointed to Sarcone’s background as a Republican lawyer who had run for office unsuccessfully multiple times, noting his apparent lack of prosecutorial experience prior to his temporary appointment. Early in his tenure, Sarcone made headlines for missteps, including listing a boarded-up building as his home address on a police affidavit, further raising questions about his suitability and the administration’s vetting process.

Weaponizing the Department of Justice: Political Targets and Subpoenas

The core of Judge Schofield’s ruling stems from Sarcone’s actions while in office, particularly his issuance of grand jury subpoenas to New York Attorney General Letitia James. These subpoenas, signed by Sarcone alone in August 2025, demanded documents and records related to two politically charged cases: James’s civil fraud lawsuit against Donald Trump, his two eldest sons, his business associates, and his family business; and her office’s civil lawsuit against the National Rifle Association. In her 24-page opinion, Judge Schofield sharply rebuked this use of power, stating, “When the Executive branch of government skirts restraints put in place by Congress and then uses that power to subject political adversaries to criminal investigations, it acts without lawful authority.” She further emphasized that “Grand juries are ‘not meant to be the private tool of a prosecutor,’ much less one who is not lawfully appointed.” The fact that the subpoenas directed the state government to send responsive documents directly to Sarcone personally only amplified concerns about the potential for political weaponization of federal law enforcement.

This is not an isolated incident. Sarcone is the fifth federal prosecutor whose appointment by the administration has been deemed unlawful by judges, illustrating a broader pattern of disregard for established norms and legal procedures. In recent weeks, this “gambit,” as Politico termed it, has met fierce resistance in the courts, leading to significant consequences. For instance, New Jersey U.S. Attorney Alina Habba resigned in early December after an appeals court upheld her disqualification, followed shortly by Delaware U.S. Attorney Julianne Murray, who also left her post, citing the Habba ruling. Federal judges have similarly disqualified prosecutors in Nevada, the Los Angeles area, and Virginia, where the dismissal of Lindsey Halligan resulted in the tossing of politically charged indictments against James and former FBI Director James Comey. The Virginia office has since tried and twice failed to re-indict James, highlighting the profound impact of these judicial interventions.

A Broader Climate of Distrust and Executive Overreach

The Sarcone ruling resonates within a wider political climate marked by escalating concerns over the integrity and impartiality of the Department of Justice. The administration’s unwavering stance, as articulated by a DOJ spokesperson who stated it “will continue to fight and defend the President and the Attorney General’s authority to appoint their US Attorneys,” signals a continued battle over executive power. This legal skirmish occurs against a backdrop of other controversies, such as the administration’s slow release of the Epstein Files, with U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi and Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche citing “substantial work remains to be done” before full disclosure, despite legal mandates (Milwaukee Independent). Critics, including Representatives Ro Khanna (D-CA) and Thomas Massie (R-KY), have expressed profound distrust, requesting a “Special Master and an Independent Monitor” to compel the DOJ to release the files, stating, “the DOJ cannot be trusted with making mandatory disclosures under the Act.”

Moreover, the perception of the DOJ being used to target “people Trump considers enemies” is not new. The Milwaukee Independent reported on concerns that the FBI, housed within the DOJ and run by “Trump loyalists Bondi and Blanche,” would not conduct a fair investigation into the controversial shooting of Renee Good in Minneapolis, particularly after the FBI reportedly shut out the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension from accessing case materials and evidence. While distinct from Sarcone’s case, these incidents collectively paint a picture of an administration seemingly determined to assert control over federal law enforcement, leading to a palpable erosion of public trust in the institutions meant to uphold justice impartially. The New York Attorney General’s office, in response to Sarcone’s disqualification, called the decision “an important win for the rule of law,” underscoring the deep divisions and high stakes involved in these legal battles.

Judicial Safeguards and the Rule of Law

The judiciary, in these instances, has emerged as a critical bulwark against perceived executive overreach. Judge Schofield’s ruling, alongside similar decisions across the country, serves as a powerful reminder that even in an era of intense political polarization, the courts retain their vital role in interpreting and enforcing the law. These judges have effectively pushed back against attempts to bypass constitutional checks and balances, particularly the Senate’s role in confirming key appointments. The resignations of other U.S. attorneys following judicial disqualification suggest that while the administration may initially resist, the weight of legal precedent and judicial authority can ultimately compel compliance. This ongoing struggle highlights the delicate balance of power within the U.S. government and the judiciary’s ultimate responsibility to safeguard the rule of law against any attempts to undermine its foundational principles.

The Sarcone ruling, therefore, transcends a mere technicality; it represents a profound affirmation of judicial independence and a forceful rejection of attempts to transform the Department of Justice into a tool for political vendettas. It underscores the critical importance of maintaining a non-partisan federal law enforcement apparatus, reminding all branches of government that the pursuit of justice must remain untainted by political expediency, lest the very fabric of democratic governance begin to unravel.