Trump Administration Seeks Supreme Court Ruling on Acting U.S. Attorneys
Trump administration filed motion asking Supreme Court to rule on acting U.S. attorney appointments.
Why it matters: This legal challenge could reshape federal enforcement by defining appointment powers and affecting ongoing prosecutions.
- Motion filed on September 10, 2026, requesting Supreme Court review of appointment legality.
- Federal appeals courts ruled some Trump-appointed acting U.S. attorneys served illegally, including in New York and Nevada.
- Courts held that Senate confirmation is required, and indefinite acting appointments bypass constitutional requirements.
- New Civil Liberties Alliance argues judicial involvement in appointments violates Separation of Powers.
- Trump administration seeks clarity amid multiple lower court rulings invalidating appointments.
On September 10, 2026, the Trump administration asked the Supreme Court to weigh in on the legality of its appointments of acting U.S. attorneys, seeking clarity on a controversy affecting federal prosecutions nationwide. This issue arose after several federal courts ruled that certain appointments were made without proper Senate confirmation and thus were unlawful.
For example, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit upheld that John Sarcone, then-Acting U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of New York, was invalidly appointed when executing subpoenas related to New York Attorney General Letitia James. Similarly, the 9th Circuit ruled the appointment of Sigal Chattah in Nevada illegal due to lack of Senate approval. Courts emphasized that Congress requires presidential nominees for U.S. attorneys to go through Senate confirmation and that presidents cannot indefinitely designate acting officials to avoid this process.
Federal judges also ruled twice against the Trump administration’s appointment attempts in New Jersey, including a recent decision declaring the appointment of Alina Habba unlawful. Meanwhile, the New Civil Liberties Alliance filed an amicus brief contending that involving courts in U.S. attorney appointments infringes the Constitution's Separation of Powers, as it draws judges into inherently political decisions and threatens judicial impartiality.
The administration’s motion to the Supreme Court signals a push to resolve these disputes at the highest level, affirming or redefining executive appointment powers related to acting U.S. attorneys. The ruling could impact the legitimacy of federal prosecutions initiated by acting attorneys lacking Senate confirmation and influence future appointment practices.
By the numbers:
- September 10, 2026 — Date of Trump administration’s Supreme Court filing
- Multiple — Federal courts invalidated acting U.S. attorney appointments in at least New York, Nevada, and New Jersey
Yes, but: The Supreme Court has yet to respond to the motion, leaving current lower court rulings in effect and creating uncertainty in some federal prosecutions.
What's next: Await Supreme Court decision to clarify appointment powers for acting U.S. attorneys, expected to shape federal enforcement protocols.