Subpoenas Overturned: Bondi Acting Prosecutor Faces Setbacks Amidst Consecutive Court Defeats Favoring Letitia James

In a significant legal triumph, New York Attorney General Letitia James successfully quashed grand jury subpoenas pursued by a temporary U.S. attorney chosen by Attorney General Pam Bondi. This decision marks another pivotal disqualification ruling in the ongoing legal landscape.

Senior U.S. District Judge Lorna Schofield, appointed during Barack Obama’s presidency, ruled Thursday that John Sarcone, who was purportedly acting as the Northern District of New York’s top prosecutor, was not legally serving in his role when the subpoenas were issued. This decision was reached without needing to address James’ claims that Sarcone’s actions were politically motivated as a form of “revenge” in favor of former President Donald Trump.

The judge highlighted that the Department of Justice could potentially reissue the subpoenas under the guidance of a legitimately authorized federal attorney, provided Sarcone is not involved. However, this could prompt James to file another motion to dismiss.

Leading up to a critical hearing on the matter, Law&Crime reported that the Democratic Attorney General referred to several previous instances where federal judges had invalidated Bondi’s temporary appointments, including figures like Alina Habba and Lindsey Halligan. These precedents were used to argue for a similar outcome concerning Sarcone.

In a motion submitted in August, James argued that Sarcone’s subpoenas, which sought documents related to her civil fraud case against Trump and his business, as well as her lawsuit against the NRA, were acts of “revenge.” She claimed this was due to the President’s dissatisfaction with her successful enforcement of New York state laws against him and his associates.

James described Sarcone as a “self-proclaimed Acting U.S. Attorney” and raised concerns about the legitimacy of his appointment by Bondi, questioning the validity of the subpoenas altogether.

Sarcone, a Trump loyalist who lacked prosecutorial experience and at least once called the Democratic Party “evil,” was appointed by Bondi in late February 2025 and then sworn in as interim U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of New York.

Like Habba, Sarcone was an interim U.S. attorney whom a federal court ultimately declined to appoint as his 120-day stint reached its expiration date. 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 — the acting U.S. attorney — by default.

James also called attention to the fact that the criminal bank fraud case against her was thrown out due to Bondi’s “invalid” appointment of Halligan on an interim basis.

Schofield took stock of the way the wind has blown against Trump’s DOJ, in multiple jurisdictions and regarding several interim or acting U.S. attorneys, and came to the “same conclusion.”

“A growing body of persuasive authority reinforces this conclusion. Since August 2025, courts in New Jersey, Nevada and California have held that similarly installed Acting U.S. Attorneys lacked lawful authority,” the judge wrote, referring Habba, Chattah, Essayli, and then Halligan. “Most recently, in November 2025, the Third Circuit affirmed the New Jersey decision. The Eastern District of Virginia also reached a comparable result in a slightly different procedural posture.”

“When the Executive branch of government skirts restraints put in place by Congress and then uses that power to subject political adversaries to criminal investigations, it acts without lawful authority,” Schofield added. “Subpoenas issued under that authority are invalid. The subpoenas are quashed, and Mr. Sarcone is disqualified from further participation in the underlying investigations.”

In a parting shot, the judge made clear that Sarcone was disqualified from “any further involvement in prosecuting or supervising the instant investigations, regardless of his title,” consistent with “similar remedies” of other courts and applying the “same principles” to “prevent” him from “continuing to direct the investigations at issue.”