In brief
U.S. District Judge David G. Campbell has disqualified Sigal Chattah from overseeing four criminal prosecutions in Nevada, determining that her appointment as acting U.S. attorney expired in July. This ruling follows similar decisions in New Jersey and critiques the Trump administration's handling of temporary appointments. Chattah's role faced resistance from Nevada's Democratic senators, adding political tension to the case. While the indictments remain, the ruling reflects ongoing legal disputes regarding federal attorney appointments and their compliance with state and federal law.
LAS VEGAS (AP) — A federal judge has disqualified the Trump-appointed U.S. attorney for Nevada from managing several ongoing criminal cases, concluding that she is not legally serving in this capacity. Judge David G. Campbell's ruling states that Sigal Chattah's appointment expired in July, thus siding with defense counsel who argued her authority was no longer valid.The judge ordered prosecutors involved to notify the court within the next week that Chattah is not directing their proceedings. However, the judge did not dismiss the underlying criminal indictments.This ruling represents a second setback for the Trump administration, which has sought to extend temporary appointments of acting U.S. attorneys beyond the legally mandated 120-day limit. Similar challenges occurred previously when the acting U.S. attorney in New Jersey was also disqualified on the same grounds. Under federal law, if a permanent U.S. attorney is not nominated and confirmed by the Senate within this timeframe, judges can appoint an interim attorney until the vacancy is filled, a point emphasized in Campbell's ruling.Judge Campbell took issue with the administration's approach of appointing multiple temporary U.S. attorneys as a means to bypass Senate confirmation processes, which typically require bipartisan support.Chattah, a conservative lawyer, encountered significant opposition from Nevada’s Democratic senators, including Catherine Cortez Masto and Jacky Rosen, highlighting the ongoing political friction surrounding federal appointments. The outcomes of these cases may influence future discussions on attorney appointments and their implications within the judicial system.
