There are myriad divisive issues in American law that often split judicial opinion along partisan lines. However, the legitimacy of Sigal Chattah as the Acting U.S. Attorney for the District of Nevada is unanimously clear across the board—it doesn't exist.

In a recent decision, a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court upheld a lower court's ruling that Chattah has been unlawfully overseeing prosecutions. The panel, notably comprising two judges appointed by Donald Trump—Judge Eric Miller and District Judge Stanley Blumenfeld—and Judge Sidney Thomas, a Clinton appointee, dismissed the administration's attempts to depict this as a partisan sabotage. Instead, they underscored a fundamental disregard for legal protocols in her appointment.

Chattah's questionable tenure began as her 120-day interim appointment neared its end. In what appeared to be a calculated move, she resigned, only to be immediately reappointed as First Assistant U.S. Attorney by then-AG Pam Bondi. This maneuver was intended to trigger the Federal Vacancies Reform Act and reinstall her as acting U.S. Attorney. However, the court noted that this automatic succession is only valid for those who were already First Assistant when the original vacancy occurred—a position held by Sue Fahami since January 2025, not Chattah.

The court's decision was clear and scathing, pointing out that the law “does not permit the executive to fill an existing vacancy by designating a new first assistant.” Furthermore, efforts by newly confirmed AG Todd Blanche to delegate every power of the office to Chattah under a different statute were also struck down, highlighting the redundancy of such legal gymnastics merely to sidestep the required Senate confirmation.

Chattah is not alone in her predicament. She joins a growing list of Trump appointees who have been deemed to hold their positions illegitimately due to a lack of Senate confirmation. This list includes figures like Alina Habba in New Jersey, Lindsey Halligan in the Eastern District of Virginia, Bill Essayli in the Central District of California, and John Sarcone in the Northern District of New York—all of whom have faced legal setbacks or had to step down due to similar judicial rulings.

This series of judicial rejections raises significant questions about the administration's appointment strategies and their adherence to constitutional and statutory requirements. Perhaps, as suggested by the repeated legal challenges and rulings, a shift toward nominating candidates who can secure Senate confirmation might not only be necessary but inevitable.