Appeals Court Rejects Trump’s Strategy for Picking U.S. Attorneys in Major Legal Setback
A federal appeals court has rejected a key strategy used by President Donald Trump’s administration to keep preferred candidates in charge of U.S. attorney offices without going through the full Senate confirmation process.
The ruling came from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in a case involving Sigal Chattah, the Trump administration’s choice to lead the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Nevada.
The court ruled that Chattah was unlawfully serving as Nevada’s top federal prosecutor after the administration attempted to extend her authority through a series of interim appointments. The decision represents another setback for the Justice Department as it seeks greater control over the selection and retention of federal prosecutors.
The dispute centers on federal rules governing how U.S. attorneys can serve when a permanent nominee has not been confirmed by the Senate.
Under federal law, an acting U.S. attorney can generally serve for a limited period. The administration’s approach involved using other appointment mechanisms to keep favored prosecutors in place after those limits expired.
The appeals court concluded that the legal maneuver used in Chattah’s case could not be used to circumvent the statutory requirements.
Chattah was initially appointed interim U.S. attorney for Nevada in 2025 for a term of up to 120 days. She did not receive Senate confirmation for the permanent position.
As her interim period approached its expiration, Chattah resigned from the position and was subsequently designated as the office’s first assistant U.S. attorney.
The Justice Department argued that the new position allowed her to continue serving as acting U.S. attorney under the Federal Vacancies Reform Act.
The appeals court disagreed.
The judges determined that Chattah did not meet the requirements necessary to assume the acting U.S. attorney position through that route because she had not been serving as the first assistant when the vacancy occurred.
The decision prevents Chattah from supervising several federal criminal prosecutions in Nevada.
The case was brought after defendants facing federal charges challenged Chattah’s authority to serve as the state’s top federal prosecutor.
A lower federal court had previously ruled against Chattah, but enforcement of that decision was temporarily paused while the government appealed.
The 9th Circuit’s decision now represents a significant confirmation of the lower court’s conclusion.
The ruling is particularly important because it comes amid a broader confrontation between the Trump administration and the federal judiciary over the president’s efforts to install preferred prosecutors across the country.
U.S. attorneys occupy powerful positions within the federal justice system.
They oversee federal criminal prosecutions, represent the United States in civil litigation and supervise large teams of federal prosecutors.
Presidents traditionally nominate U.S. attorneys, but permanent appointments generally require confirmation by the Senate.
The confirmation requirement provides lawmakers with an opportunity to examine nominees and approve or reject the president’s choices.
The Trump administration has sought to maintain greater flexibility over its prosecutors, particularly in cases where nominees face opposition from Democratic senators.
The strategy of using acting or interim positions can allow an administration to place its preferred officials in powerful prosecutorial jobs without immediately securing Senate approval.
The latest ruling indicates that courts may not allow those temporary arrangements to continue indefinitely.
The Nevada case is not an isolated dispute.
Federal courts have already confronted similar controversies involving Trump administration prosecutors in other states.
In New Jersey, for example, an appeals court previously ruled that former Trump attorney Alina Habba could not continue serving as the state’s top federal prosecutor after questions arose over the legality of the administration’s efforts to keep her in the position.
Those cases have created a growing legal challenge to the administration’s approach to temporary U.S. attorney appointments.
The issue is not simply about individual prosecutors.
It concerns the balance between presidential authority and congressional oversight of federal law enforcement.
The Constitution gives the president significant authority over the executive branch, including the power to nominate federal officials.
But Congress has established statutory procedures governing appointments to important federal positions.
The Senate’s confirmation role is one of the mechanisms intended to provide oversight over presidential appointments.
The Trump administration’s approach has tested the limits of those procedures.
Supporters of the administration argue that the president needs flexibility to ensure that the Justice Department is led by officials who support his policies.
Critics argue that bypassing Senate confirmation undermines the constitutional system of checks and balances and allows presidents to install political allies in powerful law enforcement positions without sufficient scrutiny.
The Nevada decision gives the critics a significant legal victory.
The appeals court effectively rejected the idea that an administration can simply change an official’s title or position to extend that person’s authority after the statutory limit on an acting appointment has expired.
That principle could have consequences for other Trump administration prosecutors who were placed in similar positions.
The ruling also creates uncertainty for federal cases that were overseen by Chattah.
The court disqualified her from supervising three criminal prosecutions that were specifically challenged in the litigation.
However, the decision did not automatically invalidate every action taken by her office during her tenure.
That distinction is important because a ruling against an appointment does not necessarily mean that every prosecution or indictment associated with the official must be dismissed.
Courts will have to consider the legal consequences separately in individual cases.
The Justice Department has defended the appointment strategy.
Government lawyers argued that the administration had authority to keep Chattah in the role while a permanent replacement went through the nomination process.
The administration has also pointed to the fact that it nominated George Kelesis as a replacement for Chattah.
Kelesis, a Las Vegas lawyer, still requires Senate confirmation before he can become the permanent U.S. attorney for Nevada.
The nomination itself suggests that the administration recognized the need for a permanent solution.
But the legal dispute over Chattah demonstrates the difficulties that can arise when the confirmation process becomes politically complicated.
Chattah had faced strong opposition from Nevada’s Democratic senators.
Her conservative political background and support for Trump’s agenda made her a controversial choice.
She had also been associated with efforts challenging the results of the 2020 presidential election.
Those political factors contributed to opposition to her appointment.
The administration’s attempt to retain her through an acting appointment allowed the dispute to continue after her initial term expired.
The appeals court’s decision now makes clear that the government cannot use that strategy indefinitely.
The case could become an important precedent for the Justice Department as it manages vacancies in U.S. attorney offices across the country.
The ruling also comes at a time when Trump’s Justice Department has faced numerous disputes with federal judges over prosecutorial decisions.
The administration has sought to reshape the federal law enforcement system around its priorities, including immigration enforcement and other areas emphasized by the president.
That effort has sometimes placed Trump officials in conflict with courts that have questioned the legality of particular actions.
The U.S. attorney appointment dispute is part of that larger struggle.
At the heart of the issue is a basic question: How much freedom should a president have to select and retain federal prosecutors without Senate approval?
The Trump administration has argued for broad executive authority.
The courts have emphasized that presidential power must still operate within the limits established by federal law.
The Nevada ruling reinforces that position.
The decision also demonstrates that judicial challenges can succeed even when the administration argues that its actions are necessary to maintain continuity in federal law enforcement.
Federal prosecutors need leadership, and vacancies can disrupt the operation of U.S. attorney offices.
But the court’s reasoning indicates that administrative convenience cannot override statutory appointment limits.
That could force the administration to rely more heavily on Senate-confirmed nominees.
It may also encourage the Justice Department to identify permanent candidates earlier rather than depending on temporary appointments.
For the Senate, the decision reinforces the importance of its confirmation authority.
If presidents cannot indefinitely extend acting appointments, senators have greater leverage over who ultimately leads federal prosecutor offices.
That could become particularly significant in states where Democratic senators strongly oppose Trump nominees.
The ruling therefore has implications beyond Nevada.
Other Trump-appointed prosecutors whose positions depend on similar appointment arrangements could face additional legal challenges.
Defense attorneys may also examine the authority of prosecutors who have been operating under disputed appointments.
Those challenges could potentially affect ongoing criminal cases.
However, each case will depend on its specific facts and the legal status of the prosecutor involved.
The latest ruling does not mean that the Trump administration has lost the ability to choose U.S. attorneys.
The president retains the authority to nominate candidates.
The central limitation is that permanent U.S. attorneys generally require Senate confirmation, while temporary appointments must comply with federal law governing vacancies.
The administration can still pursue its preferred candidates through the established confirmation process.
The controversy instead concerns efforts to maintain those officials in office when the statutory requirements have not been satisfied.
The Trump’s strategy for picking U.S. attorneys has therefore become an important test of executive power and congressional oversight.
The Nevada decision suggests that federal courts are willing to intervene when the administration’s appointment practices cross statutory boundaries.
It also follows the earlier appellate ruling involving Habba in New Jersey, making the latest decision part of a broader judicial pattern.
For the Justice Department, the immediate challenge will be ensuring that federal prosecutor offices remain operational while complying with appointment laws.
For Trump, the ruling represents another legal obstacle to his effort to place loyal officials in key positions throughout the federal government.
For Congress, it reinforces the Senate’s constitutional role in reviewing presidential nominees.
And for federal defendants, the decision could prompt further challenges involving prosecutors whose authority has been questioned.
The broader consequences will depend on whether the administration changes its approach following the ruling.
If officials continue attempting to use similar appointment mechanisms, additional lawsuits are likely.
If the Justice Department instead moves more quickly toward Senate-confirmed nominees, the controversy could gradually diminish.
The Nevada decision nevertheless sends a clear message about the limits of temporary federal appointments.
Presidential administrations can choose their nominees, but they must follow the legal procedures established for those appointments.
The Trump administration’s effort to keep Sigal Chattah in charge of the Nevada U.S. Attorney’s Office failed to meet those requirements, according to the 9th Circuit.
The ruling therefore stands as a significant judicial check on the administration’s approach to federal prosecutors.
As Trump continues reshaping the Justice Department, the conflict over U.S. attorney appointments is likely to remain an important part of the debate over presidential power.
The latest appeals court decision shows that the courts are prepared to scrutinize those efforts closely when the administration seeks to bypass or extend statutory appointment procedures.
For now, the Nevada U.S. Attorney’s Office must move toward a leadership arrangement that complies with federal appointment law.
The case also serves as a reminder that the president’s power over federal law enforcement, while substantial, is not unlimited.
The Trump’s strategy for picking U.S. attorneys has faced another major setback, and the ruling could influence how the administration fills prosecutorial vacancies across the country in the months ahead.
About the Author
