A federal appeals court said subpoenas aimed at New York Attorney General Letitia James were void because the acting U.S. attorney who signed them was serving unlawfully.
Story Highlights
- The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled 2-1 that John Sarcone was not lawfully acting U.S. attorney when subpoenas issued to Letitia James’s office.
- The court said the Federal Vacancies Reform Act allows only a first assistant already in place at the vacancy to serve automatically as acting officer.
- A district judge earlier found the Department of Justice used procedural maneuvers to keep Sarcone in place after his 120-day interim term lapsed.
- The rulings block enforcement of the subpoenas because they came from an official without lawful authority.
Appeals Court Finds Acting Prosecutor Lacked Legal Authority
The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit upheld an order blocking federal subpoenas to New York Attorney General Letitia James’s office. The court said Acting U.S. Attorney John Sarcone was not lawfully serving when those subpoenas were issued, so they could not be enforced. The panel voted 2-1. The ruling turns on federal vacancy rules, not the merits of any probe. The court’s decision leaves the subpoenas void and the investigation steps tied to them halted.
Reporters said the court’s analysis centered on the Federal Vacancies Reform Act. The panel wrote that only a first assistant who already held that slot when the vacancy opened can step in by default. The court found Sarcone did not meet that rule at the key time. The judges said his later designations and titles did not fix the legal gap for the subpoenas at issue. That made the subpoenas unenforceable under binding law.
District Court Record Showed Improper Workarounds After Interim Term
In January, U.S. District Judge Lorna Schofield ruled Sarcone had been serving unlawfully when he used the office’s authority to issue the subpoenas. The court found that the government used a series of procedural tactics after his 120-day interim appointment expired, but none of those steps gave him lawful power on the date the subpoenas went out. The district court said no statute covered that handoff, so the acts tied to that authority failed. The appeals court affirmed the core holding.
The district court’s order tied the legal status of the officeholder to the validity of his actions. Because the office was not lawfully held, the subpoenas fell with it. That concrete link made the case fit for court review. The appeals panel agreed and rejected enforcement of the subpoenas on the same ground. Coverage stressed that this was a statutory ruling on appointments, not a policy judgment about the investigation’s aims or targets.
What The Ruling Means For Vacancies, Oversight, And Next Steps
The decision adds to a growing line of cases where courts are policing how acting prosecutors are installed. Congress wrote the Federal Vacancies Reform Act to keep temporary posts narrow and clear. The Second Circuit read the law strictly, focusing on timing and role of the first assistant. That sends a message to any administration: follow the statute or risk losing tools like subpoenas and case supervision when courts review your steps.
The Department of Justice argued that Sarcone could serve because he was the office’s first assistant when the top job was empty. The district court rejected that timeline and said none of the cited laws authorized him on the key date, and the appeals court left that outcome in place for the subpoenas here. The ruling does not end all federal oversight in the region. It does, however, block these specific subpoenas and warns against stretching vacancy laws beyond their text.
Sources:
cbsnews.com, cnn.com, spectrumlocalnews.com
