The Second Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on August 21, 2026, that John A. Sarcone III did not lawfully serve as the Acting U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of New York. This decision stems from a dispute over whether Sarcone had the authority to issue grand jury subpoenas related to investigations into the National Rifle Association and Donald Trump. The court's ruling affects the ongoing investigations and clarifies the limits of authority for acting U.S. Attorneys.
The case, officially titled In Re Grand Jury Subpoenas to the Office of the New York State Attorney General (Docket No. 26-156), involves the Office of the New York State Attorney General (NYOAG) and the United States government. The NYOAG sought to quash two subpoenas issued by Sarcone, arguing that he lacked the authority to issue them. The court's decision is significant as it addresses the constitutional requirements for appointing acting officials in the U.S. Attorney's office.
The background of this case involves the appointment of Sarcone following the departure of the Senate-confirmed U.S. Attorney, Carla B. Freedman, on February 17, 2025. After Freedman's departure, Sarcone was appointed Interim U.S. Attorney under 28 U.S.C. § 546, a role that lasted for 120 days. Following the expiration of this term, Sarcone was designated as the First Assistant U.S. Attorney (FAUSA). However, the court found that he could not automatically assume the role of Acting U.S. Attorney because he was not in that position when the vacancy occurred.
The NYOAG moved to quash the subpoenas issued by Sarcone, arguing that he did not have the legal authority to obtain them. The United States District Court for the Northern District of New York agreed, stating that Sarcone lacked authority either as Acting U.S. Attorney or through any delegation from the Attorney General. The court further disqualified Sarcone from future involvement in the investigations.
The Second Circuit Court upheld the district court's ruling, affirming that Sarcone was not validly serving as Acting U.S. Attorney when he issued the subpoenas. The court stated, "We hold that Sarcone was not serving as Acting U.S. Attorney when he obtained the subpoenas because the FVRA permits only a First Assistant already in place when the vacancy arises to become the acting officer automatically." The ruling emphasized that the general delegation of authority to Sarcone was an unlawful attempt to circumvent the Federal Vacancies Reform Act (FVRA).
This ruling has implications for the future of the ongoing investigations into the NRA and Trump. By clarifying the limits of authority for acting U.S. Attorneys, the court's decision reinforces the importance of adhering to constitutional and statutory requirements for appointments. The ruling may also impact how future acting officials are appointed and the scope of their authority.
Looking ahead, it is unclear whether the government will appeal this decision. The court's ruling has set a clear precedent regarding the authority of acting U.S. Attorneys and the requirements for issuing subpoenas. As of now, there are no related cases pending that would directly challenge this ruling.