Appeals court rules Trump-appointed U.S. attorney was illegally hired, voiding subpoenas to NY AG
A federal appeals panel found Albany US Attorney John Sarcone III was unlawfully appointed, invalidating the subpoenas he sent to Letitia James’s office.
The Second Circuit Court of Appeals issued a split decision declaring that Albany US Attorney John Sarcone III’s appointment by the Trump administration in 2025 was illegal, thereby voiding the two subpoenas he issued to New York Attorney General Letitia James’s office last year. The Justice Department announced it intends to elevate the case to the Supreme Court. Sarcone, who previously served as a Trump campaign attorney, launched a probe into alleged civil-rights violations by James in May 2025, coordinating with the FBI.
Although a federal judge in January had already found his appointment by former Attorney General Pam Bondi unlawful, Sarcone stayed on, first as acting U.S. attorney for a 120-day period, then as first assistant U.S. attorney and special attorney. The underlying civil suit, filed by James in 2022, accuses Donald Trump’s business of inflating property values to secure favorable loans. James’s office did not immediately comment on the appellate ruling.
Why it matters
The ruling blocks a key DOJ tool in its case against New York's attorney general, highlighting limits on politically appointed prosecutors.
How the sides frame it
MODERATE AGREEMENTAll camps report that the appeals court found the Trump-appointed prosecutor’s hiring unlawful and nullified his subpoenas, but left-leaning coverage stresses the decision as a rebuke to Trump’s attempts to bypass Senate confirmation, while right-leaning coverage highlights the Justice Department’s intent to appeal and frames the ruling as a procedural setback for the administration; Centrist coverage presents the facts with minimal evaluative language.
LEFT
Frames the ruling as a check on Trump’s effort to sidestep normal appointment rules and limit his influence over investigations.
RIGHT
Portrays the decision as a legal setback for the Trump-appointed attorney and stresses the Justice Department’s plan to challenge the ruling.
The left emphasises
- calls Sarcone a "Trump ally" and "unlawfully appointed"
- highlights the 2-1 vote and notes the dissenting judge was a Trump appointee
- underscores the limits of the former president’s attempts to circumvent Senate confirmation
The right emphasises
- labels the hiring as "illegal" and the subpoenas as voided
- emphasizes the DOJ’s intention to appeal the decision to the Supreme Court
- mentions Sarcone’s prior role as a Trump campaign attorney and the political context
In this story
