A federal judge on Thursday disqualified John Sarcone, the acting U.S. attorney for the Northern District of New York, ruling that he had been serving unlawfully when he issued subpoenas to state Attorney General Letitia James.
The ruling prevents Sarcone from pursuing records related to James’ civil lawsuits against President Donald Trump, his family business and the National Rifle Association.
U.S. District Judge Lorna Schofield, an Obama appointee, wrote in a 24-page opinion that Sarcone “acted without lawful authority.”
She emphasized that bypassing congressional restrictions to pursue politically sensitive investigations exceeds the powers granted to the executive branch.
“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,” Schofield wrote.
The judge added that the subpoenas were unenforceable because Sarcone lacked the legal authority to issue them.
The subpoenas demanded information about lawsuits filed by James, alleging fraud and other misconduct by Trump, his sons and associates.
James’ office argued that the subpoenas were politically motivated and aimed to pressure a state official pursuing civil actions against Trump allies.
A spokesperson for James’ office called Thursday’s ruling “an important win for the rule of law” and vowed to continue defending the office’s ongoing litigation, according to Fox News.
The Justice Department defended Sarcone’s authority, asserting that his appointment was valid and that the subpoenas he issued were lawful.
He had originally been named interim U.S. attorney by Attorney General Pam Bondi for a 120-day term.
When that term expired, a federal court refused to extend his tenure, prompting the administration to attempt alternative appointments.
Schofield ruled that these maneuvers violated federal law, which does not permit workarounds to maintain prosecutorial authority without proper legal approval, Politico reports.
Sarcone’s appointment had been controversial from the start.
A Republican lawyer with limited prosecutorial experience, he drew attention for procedural missteps, including listing a boarded-up building as his residence on official documents.
Thursday’s ruling follows a broader pattern of judicial pushback against Trump-appointed U.S. attorneys who bypass the Senate confirmation process, with similar interventions reported in Nevada, California and Virginia.
In Virginia, disqualifications of federal prosecutors led to the dismissal of indictments against James and former FBI Director James Comey, as Resist the Mainstream highlighted in November.
Schofield also criticized the procedural aspects of Sarcone’s subpoenas, noting that they were directed personally to him rather than the office, raising further legal concerns.
“Grand juries are ‘not meant to be the private tool of a prosecutor,’” she wrote, “much less one who is not lawfully appointed.”
The court cited the overlap between Sarcone’s contested appointment and his active legal actions as particularly problematic.
Legal analysts say the ruling highlights the importance of proper appointment procedures for U.S. attorneys and reinforces judicial oversight of politically sensitive investigations.
The decision may have implications for other cases where federal prosecutors are accused of acting outside legal authority to target political opponents.
Sarcone’s office had also represented the government in civil actions involving the alleged wrongful termination of federal prosecutors, including a lawsuit filed by Maurene Comey, daughter of former FBI Director James Comey.
Schofield noted that Sarcone’s involvement in multiple overlapping matters amplified concerns about the misuse of authority and reinforced the need for adherence to federal appointment rules.
