New York Attorney General Letitia James has stepped into the legal limelight once again, addressing a federal judge to highlight a pattern of courtroom defeats experienced by U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi. James contends these defeats stem from similar deficiencies present in Bondi’s legal maneuvers, suggesting that Bondi’s fate should be met by her current counterpart, Acting U.S. Attorney John Sarcone.

In a strategic move, James filed a notice of supplemental authority on Tuesday. This document, intended for the perusal of Senior U.S. District Judge Lorna Schofield, a Barack Obama appointee, points out that the courts have consistently overturned Bondi’s appointments of interim and acting U.S. attorneys. James argues that Sarcone’s subpoenas for documents should suffer the same fate.

Judge Schofield has scheduled a pivotal hearing for Thursday at 11 a.m. to deliberate on James’ motion to nullify Sarcone’s grand jury subpoenas. These subpoenas are part of a broader Department of Justice investigation into the New York attorney general’s own investigations. Notably, the upcoming oral arguments will focus solely on whether Sarcone’s appointment as Acting U.S. Attorney was flawed, thereby invalidating the subpoenas.

James’ August motion to quash these subpoenas claims that Sarcone’s demands for documents related to her civil fraud lawsuit against former President Donald Trump, his family business, and her lawsuit against the NRA, are motivated by retaliation. She asserts that these actions are a direct response to the President’s dissatisfaction with her successful enforcement of New York State laws against him and his associates.

In the motion to quash from August, James said Sarcone’s subpoenas for documents on her civil fraud lawsuit against President Donald Trump and his family business and on her lawsuit against the NRA are little more than “revenge” — “because the President is unhappy that [her office] successfully enforced the laws of the State of New York against him and his allies.”

Referring to Sarcone as a “self-proclaimed Acting U.S. Attorney,” James noted months ago that Bondi’s appointment method for Sarcone raised the question of whether the subpoenas were valid at all.

Sarcone, a Trump loyalist who lacked prosecutorial experience and has at least once called the Democratic Party “evil,” was appointed by Bondi in late February and then sworn in as interim U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of New York.

Like Alina Habba, Sarcone was an interim U.S. attorney whom a federal court ultimately declined to appoint as his 120-day stint reached expiration dates. And yet, Bondi kept them in place by simultaneously naming them a supervising “Special Attorney to the Attorney General” and first assistant U.S. attorneys, normally the second in command to the U.S. attorney but here the number one by default.

Alina Habba walks off stage after speaking before Republican presidential nominee former President Donald Trump arrives at a campaign rally at J.S. Dorton Arena, Monday, Nov. 4, 2024, in Raleigh, N.C. (AP Photo/Evan Vucci).

This history explains why James’ supplemental letter referenced the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision this week upholding Habba’s disqualification from her criminal defendant challengers’ cases.

“The Office of the New York State Attorney General (‘OAG’) respectfully submits this notice of supplemental authority to alert the Court to three recent decisions bearing on the issues raised in OAG’s Motion to Quash Grand Jury Subpoenas, which is pending before the Court,” the letter said. “We attach the opinions for the Court’s convenience.”

As James noted, the 3rd Circuit ruled Monday that Habba could not lawfully be the acting U.S. attorney under the Federal Vacancies Reform Act because she was not the first assistant in the office when the top vacancy arose upon her resignation as interim U.S. attorney.

Nor could Habba, as a backup plan, “indefinitely” wield authority delegated to her by Bondi to act as a U.S. attorney through a separate statute as the office’s special attorney supervisor.

“[T]he Third Circuit held that ‘only the first assistant in place at the time of the vacancy automatically assumes acting status’ under the Federal Vacancies Reform Act,” James’ letter went on. “In addition, as OAG also argues here, the court held that the Department of Justice cannot use delegation powers to install a ‘de facto U.S. Attorney indefinitely,’ thereby ‘avoid[ing] the gauntlet of presidential appointment and Senate confirmation.’”

James similarly cited a judge’s ruling last week that Bondi unlawfully appointed Lindsey Halligan as interim U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia and special attorney, a decision that resulted in the dismissal of the DOJ’s bank fraud indictment against the New York AG and the dismissal of the obstruction and false statement indictment against former FBI director James Comey.

The NYAG noted that a key issue for Bondi was that Halligan was the only attorney to present the case before the grand jury and the only attorney to sign the indictments, using a title she did not lawfully possess.

Lindsey Halligan, special assistant to the president, speaks with a reporter outside of the White House, Wednesday, Aug. 20, 2025, in Washington. (AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin).

James submits that Sarcone’s subpoenas have the same problem.

“In each case, the court held that the Attorney General’s appointment of Lindsey Halligan as Interim U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia was invalid,” the letter said. “In addition, the court held that because Halligan secured the indictments herself, and given the ‘near-complete control that prosecutors wield over the grand-jury process,’ the only appropriate remedy was to ‘set aside’ ‘all actions flowing from [her] defective appointment.’”

“OAG similarly argues that because Mr. Sarcone authorized, obtained, and delivered the subpoenas himself, the only proper remedy is granting the motion to quash,” James concluded.

The motion to quash, including a footnote that emphasized Sarcone sought the subpoenas using the title of acting U.S. attorney, stated that “because Sarcone has no legitimate authority to serve as Acting U.S. Attorney, any process sought by him in that capacity, like these two subpoenas, is unauthorized and unlawful.”

Well before the scheduled Thursday hearing and the adverse rulings against Bondi’s DOJ, the Trump administration insisted that Sarcone “properly” holds his position and that the relief James and her office demand is “simply not available.”

“The remedy the NYAOG [sic] seeks here – quashing the subpoenas – is simply not available even if Mr. Sarcone is not properly holding the office of Acting United States Attorney because, as a Special Attorney, he had authority to conduct grand jury proceedings,” the DOJ said in a filing docketed on Nov. 3.