DOJ Vows Supreme Court Appeal After Ruling in New York Subpoena Fight

The Justice Department isn't backing down after a federal appeals court ruled against it Friday in the New York subpoena fight, vowing to take the case all the way to the Supreme Court. The 2-1 decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit upheld a lower court's move to block subpoenas issued to New York Attorney General Letitia James' office -- but the administration's push for accountability is far from over.

A Justice Department spokesperson said the administration disagrees with the decision and intends to take the case to the Supreme Court. At the center of the dispute is John Sarcone, a former Trump campaign attorney who was serving as acting U.S. attorney for the Northern District of New York when he issued the subpoenas in August 2025.

What the Court Decided

The appeals court found that Sarcone was not lawfully serving as acting U.S. attorney when he sought records from James' office tied to civil lawsuits she filed against President Donald Trump, his family business, and the National Rifle Association. The ruling turned on the Federal Vacancies Reform Act, the law that governs how the president fills high-level vacancies and who is allowed to step into an acting role.

Under the law, a first assistant automatically moves into the top spot only if he was already in place when the vacancy opened. Sarcone took over as acting U.S. attorney in February 2025 after his predecessor left, and the law only permits that arrangement for a limited window unless the Senate confirms a replacement. The court also rejected the government's argument that Sarcone could issue the subpoenas under a separate special attorney designation, describing the arrangement as an unlawful circumvention of the confirmation process.

A federal judge ruled earlier this year that Sarcone was in the role unlawfully, ordered the subpoenas quashed, and disqualified him from any further involvement in the investigations. Friday's appeals court decision affirmed that ruling in a 40-page opinion.

An Accountability Fight, Not a Defeat

Friday's ruling is the third time a federal appeals court has rejected the administration's approach to filling U.S. attorney vacancies, with similar challenges playing out in Nevada, California, New Jersey, and Virginia. The Ninth Circuit earlier this week upheld the disqualification of an acting U.S. attorney in Nevada on similar grounds.

But the decision is procedural, not fatal. The lower court explicitly noted that the government remains free to reissue the subpoenas through lawfully authorized officials, meaning the underlying review of James' office can continue through proper channels.

James has spent years as one of the most aggressive legal adversaries of the president, leading civil cases against Trump and his family business and securing a judgment in the New York business fraud case. The administration's effort to examine whether her office engaged in misconduct while pursuing politically charged lawsuits has always been about one thing: making sure politically weaponized investigations are held to the same standard as everyone else.

What Happens Next

The case now heads to the Supreme Court, where the administration will argue that the appeals court misread the vacancies law and that Sarcone possessed the authority he exercised. A ruling from the high court could settle the broader question of how the executive branch fills acting U.S. attorney posts -- a dispute that has produced conflicting rulings across the country.

For now, the fight over the New York subpoenas continues. The administration has made clear it views this as a test case for its broader effort to rein in lawfare, and it intends to see that effort through to the end.