Before 2025, the notion of illegitimate U.S. attorneys was unheard of. However, the trend has escalated under President Donald Trump's second term as he has attempted to sidestep Senate confirmations and the stipulations of 28 USC § 546 by placing preferred candidates in various U.S. Attorney roles.

Historically, federal law permits the president to make a single interim U.S. Attorney appointment per federal district, effective for only 120 days. Beyond this period, the position must be filled by a Senate-confirmed nominee or a judicially appointed placeholder. Despite this clear statute, Trump's administration has seen multiple disqualifications for failing to adhere to these rules.

The list of disqualified attorneys includes notable figures such as Alina Habba from New Jersey, Lindsey Halligan from the Eastern District of Virginia, Sigal Chattah in Nevada, and Bill Essayli in Southern California. The latest addition to this list is John Sarcone III from the Northern District of New York. Sarcone, after serving his 120-day interim term, was not legally extended in his role, leading to his disqualification.

In a particular case involving Sarcone, U.S. District Judge Lorna Schofield highlighted the misuse of power when she evaluated subpoenas issued by Sarcone to New York Attorney General Letitia James, a known political adversary of Trump. Judge Schofield criticized the executive branch for acting "without lawful authority" by evading legislative constraints and using such power to target political opponents.

This ongoing issue underscores a significant lesson for the Department of Justice regarding the proper protocol for appointments. It remains to be seen whether these lessons will resonate and lead to changes in how appointments are handled in the future.

The implications of these disqualifications are profound, raising questions about the legality and ethics of the current administration's appointment strategies. Legal experts and political analysts will undoubtedly continue to watch these developments closely, as each disqualification adds to the broader narrative of administrative overreach and manipulation.

Read the full judicial order regarding Sarcone's disqualification by following the provided document link [here](https://abovethelaw.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2026/01/gov.uscourts.nynd_.149556.50.0.pdf).

The repeated disqualifications serve as a cautionary tale about the checks and balances inherent within the U.S. legal system, designed to prevent such abuses of power. As this trend develops, it will be crucial to monitor any further attempts to bypass established legal and procedural norms.