Federal judges in New York and New Jersey have rejected President Trump’s controversial interim U.S. attorney appointments, but the Justice Department has found ways to keep the president’s choices in power.
In July, judicial panels declined to extend the terms of John Sarcone III in New York and Alina Habba in New Jersey. Under the Vacancies Act, judges can extend an interim appointment or select an acting U.S. attorney after the 120-day limit expires without Senate confirmation. Instead, the courts refused to extend Sarcone’s term and replaced Habba with her deputy, Desiree Leigh Grace. Hours later, the Justice Department fired Grace and reinstated Habba for another 210 days, while Attorney General Pam Bondi appointed Sarcone as “special attorney to the attorney general,” effectively restoring his full authority.
Similar tactics were employed in California and Nevada, where the administration appointed Bilal “Bill” Essayli and Sigal Chattah as acting U.S. attorneys before judges could vote on whether to keep them.
Controversial Records Fuel Judicial Pushback
The judges’ resistance stems partly from concerns about the conduct and political alignment of the president Trump’s appointees. Essayli, the only one of the four with prior prosecutorial experience, has been accused of pushing politically charged cases in line with Trump’s interests, prompting staff resignations.
Chattah, a former private attorney and failed state attorney general candidate in Nevada, has been criticized for targeting political opponents and making racially charged remarks. More than 100 former judges signed a letter urging her rejection, citing her 2022 comment about Nevada Attorney General Aaron Ford, who is Black, that he should be “hanging from a f crane.” Chattah defended the statement as a common Israeli expression.
Habba’s Aggressive Political Stance in New Jersey
Habba, once one of Trump’s personal attorneys and later White House counsel, has been openly political in her prosecutorial approach. She pledged to “turn New Jersey red” and has launched high-profile investigations into the state’s Democratic governor and attorney general over immigration enforcement disputes.
She also filed and later dropped criminal charges against Newark’s mayor and accused a Democratic congresswoman of felony assault during a protest. Her actions have sparked legal challenges from defendants who argue she holds office unlawfully. Two ongoing federal cases in New Jersey now hinge on the validity of her appointment.
Sarcone Targets Letitia James in New York
In New York, Sarcone’s office recently subpoenaed state Attorney General Letitia James as part of an investigation into whether she violated Trump’s civil rights in the fraud lawsuit that led to a February 2024 judgment against him.
Sarcone, a political appointee during Trump’s first term, reached the end of his 120-day interim term without Senate confirmation. When the district court declined to extend his tenure or appoint a replacement, the Justice Department installed him indefinitely as a “special attorney,” bypassing the usual judicial role in such transitions.
Vacancies Act: A Loophole in the Confirmation Process
Under the Federal Vacancies Reform Act, presidents may appoint interim U.S. attorneys for up to 120 days without Senate confirmation. After that, local federal judges can either extend the appointment or name an acting replacement for up to 210 days.
Traditionally, administrations have worked with the judiciary to select mutually acceptable interim appointees. But in three of these four contested cases, Trump never submitted nominations to the Senate within the 120-day window. In Habba’s case, her nomination was withdrawn when Senate rejection appeared certain—allowing the White House to reappoint her in a different capacity that restored her authority.
Critics Warn of Threat to Judicial Independence
The Justice Department has defended the appointments, calling the president’s legal team “fantastic” and insisting the moves are within the law. Yet critics, including retired federal judge Michael Luttig, see a dangerous precedent.
“Every action that he’s taken has been intended to harass, intimidate and threaten the federal judiciary into submission to his will,” Luttig told opitanglobamedia News. Legal scholars warn that bypassing Senate and judicial oversight erodes the constitutional balance intended to prevent executive overreach.
Uncertain Future for Trump Interim U.S. Attorney Appointees
As of this week, six of Trump’s interim U.S. attorneys have reached their 120-day limit, with two receiving judicial extensions and four retained through executive maneuvering. Since January, the president has named 45 interim U.S. attorneys and submitted at least 30 nominations to the Senate.
It remains unclear whether the administration will continue using these tactics to keep politically loyal prosecutors in office. But with growing judicial resistance and mounting legal challenges, the conflict over U.S. attorney appointments may be far from over.
.
