Judge Denies Fake US Attorney’s Subpoenas; Offers Clear Fix for Trump DOJ Issue

A recent judicial decision has created a significant hurdle for the Department of Justice (DOJ) as it proceeds with its legal investigations. A federal judge has refused to pause a ruling that invalidated subpoenas issued by an unauthorized acting U.S. attorney, while confirming that the criminal investigation itself can continue under different leadership.

Senior U.S. District Judge Lorna Schofield determined that U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi’s appointment of John Sarcone in the Northern District of New York was unlawful. Consequently, subpoenas he issued over the summer to New York Attorney General Letitia James’ office were deemed “invalid” and “quashed.” Judge Schofield’s ruling also disqualified Sarcone from participating further in the investigation. This aligns with similar judgments by other federal judges, affecting various probes linked to former President Donald Trump.

Sarcone’s subpoenas aimed to obtain documents from ongoing civil fraud lawsuits against Trump and his business empire, as well as from a lawsuit filed by Democrat Attorney General James against the National Rifle Association (NRA).

In Judge Schofield’s order, the phrase “regardless of his title” addressed Sarcone’s additional role as a special attorney, which Bondi claimed authorized him to oversee the office by delegating her powers. The judge remarked that the DOJ could potentially issue new subpoenas under the guidance of a legitimately authorized federal attorney, excluding Sarcone.

Despite this, the DOJ sought to delay the enforcement of Judge Schofield’s decision while appealing to the 2nd Circuit. However, their request was marred by a misspelling of another invalid acting U.S. attorney’s name, while arguing that Sarcone’s titles as first assistant U.S. attorney and special attorney might still validate the subpoenas.

On Wednesday, Schofield declined to do anything of the sort, leaving the status quo in place while also reminding the DOJ that it can continue its investigation by following the law.

Simply put, the government didn’t make a “strong showing” that it is likely to succeed or that they are irreparably harmed by the ruling in the absence of a stay, the judge said.

“The Appointment Order concludes that compliance with subpoenas personally directed by an official using authority he did not lawfully possess is by its nature unreasonable and oppressive,” Schofield wrote. “That the Federal Government disagrees with the Order’s analysis does not amount to a ‘strong showing’ under Nken.”

A couple of lines later, the judge said DOJ’s attempt to demonstrate harm “misses the mark” because the order “does not bar a lawful investigation” and the Trump administration can simply use lawful means to probe the NYAG.

“To the contrary, the Order reinforces those principles by ensuring the lawful authority of those conducting and supervising Department of Justice criminal investigations,” Schofield went on. “As the Order explains, the Federal Government remains free to continue the instant investigations, including reissuing the subpoenas, through lawfully authorized officials.”

The judge, a Barack Obama appointee, also wasn’t persuaded by the argument that, because other rulings fell short of disqualification, Sarcone should have the same legal leeway.

“That some district courts declined to invalidate other actions taken by improperly appointed U.S. Attorneys does not compel a different result here. Each case turns on its own facts. The Appointment Order imposes a narrow disqualification that applies only to the two investigations at issue, and rests on Mr. Sarcone’s direct and personal involvement with subpoenas issued during ongoing pre-indictment investigations,” Schofield concluded. “These facts distinguish this case from those cited by the Federal Government. Taken together, the Federal Government has not made a ‘strong showing’ of likely success on appeal.”

The effect of ruling in the opposite direction would have been to revive the subpoenas as an appeal unfolded. The DOJ had pledged not to enforce the subpoenas if the judge granted a stay.

Controversy surrounding Sarcone’s office did not abate after the subpoenas were quashed in January, as he continued to identify himself in other court filings as acting U.S. attorney. Eventually, he relinquished the title.

Last month, the district court’s judges exercised their statutory authority to appoint Donald Kinsella to Sarcone’s vacant office, only for Kinsella to be immediately fired and for Sarcone to remain in place as first assistant.

In that capacity, Sarcone — with reportedly no other prior prosecutorial experience — announced the training of new line prosecutors on Thursday.

“We are extremely grateful to have you join the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of New York. We eagerly look forward to the contributions you will make as we work together to uphold our mission and serve the public as civil servants,” he said.