The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that the Attorney General cannot appoint someone as an Acting U.S. Attorney without following specific legal procedures. This decision affects ongoing federal prosecutions in Nevada and clarifies the rules regarding the appointment of acting officials in the federal government.
In a case titled United States v. Salazar Del Real (Docket No. 25-6475), the court upheld a lower court's decision to disqualify Sigal Chattah from overseeing prosecutions in three cases. This ruling is significant as it addresses the legality of Chattah's appointment and the broader implications for federal appointments.
Background
The dispute arose after Jason Frierson resigned as the U.S. Attorney for the District of Nevada on January 17, 2025. Following his resignation, Sue Fahami, the First Assistant U.S. Attorney, automatically became the Acting U.S. Attorney under the Federal Vacancies Reform Act of 1998 (FVRA). However, in April 2025, the Attorney General appointed Sigal Chattah as the interim U.S. Attorney, a position she held for 120 days.
Chattah's term was set to expire on July 30, 2025, but she resigned just two days before, on July 28. In her resignation letter, she expressed her intention to continue leading the U.S. Attorney's Office. The Attorney General then designated her as the First Assistant U.S. Attorney, claiming she could serve as Acting U.S. Attorney upon any vacancy. This designation led to the indictments of several defendants, including Gianni Icab Salazar Del Real, whose cases were affected by Chattah's authority.
The Ruling
The Ninth Circuit ruled that the Attorney General's appointment of Chattah as Acting U.S. Attorney was invalid. The court stated, “Although the Federal Vacancies Reform Act of 1998 provides that a first assistant automatically succeeds to a vacant office, that rule of automatic succession applies only to a first assistant who held that position at the time the vacancy arose.” This means that Chattah, who was not the first assistant when Frierson resigned, could not legally assume the role of Acting U.S. Attorney.
The court also dismissed the defendants' cross-appeals, which challenged the denial of their motions to dismiss the indictments. The judges concluded that the defendants' arguments regarding Chattah's appointment did not necessitate a review of the indictments themselves. The ruling was delivered by Circuit Judge Eric D. Miller, with support from Judges Sidney R. Thomas and Stanley Blumenfeld, Jr.
Impact
This ruling has significant implications for federal prosecutions in Nevada and potentially across the country. It clarifies that the Attorney General cannot bypass the Senate confirmation process for U.S. Attorneys by appointing acting officials without adhering to the established legal framework. This decision reinforces the importance of the Appointments Clause of the Constitution, which requires Senate confirmation for principal officers, including U.S. Attorneys.
The ruling may also set a precedent for similar cases in the future. It emphasizes that acting officials must be appointed according to the rules outlined in the FVRA and that any attempts to circumvent these rules could result in disqualification from their roles. This could lead to increased scrutiny of appointments made by the Attorney General and other executive officials.
What's Next
It is unclear whether the government will appeal this decision to the Supreme Court. However, the President has nominated George Kelesis to serve as the U.S. Attorney for the District of Nevada, which may resolve the vacancy without further legal disputes. The outcome of this case could influence how future appointments are handled within the federal government.