A federal judge in the United States has taken the significant step of disqualifying a prosecutor from overseeing investigations into New York Attorney General Letitia James. The ruling, delivered on Thursday 8th January 2026, found the prosecutor had been serving unlawfully when he issued subpoenas.
Judge Cites "Threshold Defect" in Prosecutor's Authority
U.S. District Judge Lorna G. Schofield blocked subpoenas requested by John Sarcone, who was the acting U.S. attorney for the Northern District of New York. In her decision, Judge Schofield stated the subpoenas were unenforceable because Sarcone was not lawfully serving in his acting role at the time they were issued.
"The subpoenas are unenforceable due to a threshold defect: Mr. Sarcone was not lawfully serving as Acting U.S. Attorney when the subpoenas were issued," the judge wrote in her ruling. This legal technicality has major implications for the investigations he was leading.
Subpoenas Targeted James's High-Profile Lawsuits
The subpoenas in question sought information related to lawsuits filed by Attorney General James, a prominent Democrat. These included her civil fraud case against former President Donald Trump concerning his business dealings, as well as a separate action against the National Rifle Association (NRA) and some of its former leaders.
James had legally challenged Sarcone's authority to issue the subpoenas. Her position is that the inquiry into her work is part of a broader campaign of what she calls baseless investigations and prosecutions targeting perceived enemies of Donald Trump.
Broader Implications for Trump-Era Appointment Manoeuvres
This ruling is the latest judicial decision to address the legality of unusual appointment tactics employed by the Trump administration. The administration sought to keep favoured candidates in key U.S. attorney roles indefinitely, bypassing the standard Senate confirmation process.
While lawyers for the U.S. Department of Justice argued that Sarcone was appointed properly and that the subpoenas were valid, the court disagreed. The judge's decision reinforces scrutiny over the previous administration's efforts to sidestep established constitutional norms for appointing federal officials.
The outcome effectively halts this particular line of investigation into Attorney General James's professional actions, marking a significant legal victory for her and setting a precedent concerning the validity of appointments made outside the usual Senate process.
