Judge Temporarily Halts DOJ Investigation into Letitia James’ Cases Against Trump

A federal judge has issued a ruling that disqualifies a key U.S. attorney leading a Department of Justice probe into New York Attorney General Letitia James’ legal actions against President Donald Trump and the National Rifle Association (NRA).

U.S. District Judge Lorna Schofield, appointed by President Obama, found that Acting U.S. Attorney John Sarcone III’s appointment in the Northern District of New York involved an improper procedural workaround, rendering his subpoenas invalid.

In her decision, she emphasized concerns about executive overreach, but the ruling primarily pauses—rather than ends—the investigation. Supporters of the probe see it as a vital step toward ensuring fairness in the justice system, particularly regarding claims of politically motivated prosecutions targeting Trump and conservative organizations.

Schofield wrote that the DOJ’s actions skirted congressional restraints, stating, “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.”

She quashed the subpoenas and barred Sarcone from further involvement. Importantly, the door remains open: a properly appointed U.S. attorney could reissue the subpoenas and continue the effort to hold officials accountable for potential selective enforcement.

The Core Issue: An Improper Appointment Process

The disqualification centers on how Sarcone extended his role beyond legal limits. He was first named interim U.S. attorney for a 120-day period. When that term ended and local district judges declined to extend it, standard federal procedures should have kicked in to fill the position permanently.

Instead, on the very same day, the DOJ made coordinated personnel moves and title changes to designate him as acting attorney. Judge Schofield ruled this a clear violation, calling it an unauthorized “workaround” that undermined statutory requirements.

This marks the fifth time a U.S. attorney has faced disqualification over similar appointment issues nationwide.

For Trump allies, these technical hurdles are frustrating but don’t diminish the underlying importance of examining whether state officials like James pursued cases against the president and his allies for partisan reasons rather than pure legal merit.

Looking at the Bigger Picture of Legal Challenges

This setback fits into a broader pattern where DOJ efforts to investigate figures involved in high-profile cases against Trump have encountered judicial resistance.

For instance, a separate indictment against James for alleged mortgage fraud was dismissed after another U.S. attorney’s disqualification, and appeals are ongoing. Similar issues have arisen in districts across New Jersey, Nevada, and California.

Despite these obstacles, the Trump administration and its supporters remain committed to pursuing equal justice under the law.

The probe’s goals—rooting out any bias in the aggressive legal campaigns against Trump’s business empire and groups like the NRA—align with promises to drain the swamp and restore impartiality. While the road has bumps, the option to restart with proper appointments keeps hope alive for meaningful accountability in the months ahead.