this post was submitted on 12 Feb 2026
50 points (100.0% liked)

Progressive Politics

4021 readers
1263 users here now

Welcome to Progressive Politics! A place for news updates and political discussion from a left perspective. Conservatives and centrists are welcome just try and keep it civil :)

(Sidebar still a work in progress post recommendations if you have them such as reading lists)

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

A district court in New York set the Trump administration off on Wednesday by naming the replacement for one of the DOJ's several "not lawfully serving" acting U.S. attorneys, leading to a swift "you are fired" announcement on social media and a near replay of a standoff from the summer.

John Sarcone had clung to his claimed title of acting top prosecutor, through the office of first assistant U.S. attorney, and special attorney, as supervisor for the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Northern District even after a judge quashed his grand jury subpoenas of New York Attorney General Letitia James' office, as Sarcone "used authority he did not lawfully possess to direct the issuance of the subpoenas[.]"

In a brief announcement, the court cited 28 U.S. Code § 546(d) to name [Donald] Kinsella the U.S. attorney, pointing to his "more than 50 years of experience in complex criminal and civil litigation" and his time as the criminal chief of the office.

Under the statute, when a U.S. attorney's stint has expired, the "district court for such district may appoint a United States attorney to serve until the vacancy is filled." And under Article II, Congress "may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments."

top 5 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] DrFistington@lemmy.world 3 points 16 minutes ago (1 children)

The doj is no longer a legitimate institution. Every court should just act as though they don't exist, and fallback on state level precedent/avenues

[–] FaceDeer@fedia.io 2 points 8 minutes ago

If the government is refusing to send any legitimate representation to court, just start automatically ruling in favor of the defendants by default. If I refused to attend court that's what would happen to me.

[–] Arghblarg@lemmy.ca 13 points 1 hour ago (2 children)

So, appoint him again. And if they fire him again, appoint him yet again. Make the circus more evident for the people who aren't paying attention.

[–] SinningStromgald@lemmy.world 1 points 10 minutes ago

No no no. Let them keep saying unqualified hacks are attorneys and having judges quash their filings. Eventually the judges will get fed up and throw them in jail.

[–] spaghettiwestern@sh.itjust.works 0 points 46 minutes ago* (last edited 39 minutes ago)

Oh they couldn't do that without risking real consequences like a furrowed brow and shaken finger from the presiding judge.