A federal appeals court unanimously upheld the disqualification of Sigal Chattah as acting U.S. Attorney for Nevada, marking the latest judicial rebuke of the administration's strategy for filling top prosecutor posts without Senate confirmation.
A three-judge panel of the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Monday that the Justice Department could not keep Chattah in charge of the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Nevada through the appointment and delegation workarounds it used after her interim term expired. The panel rejected both of the DOJ's legal arguments, that Chattah's designation as first assistant U.S. attorney triggered automatic succession under the Federal Vacancies Reform Act of 1998, and that Attorney General Pam Bondi could simply delegate all U.S. attorney functions to Chattah by separate authority.
The ruling disqualifies Chattah from supervising prosecutions in three criminal cases and deals a concrete blow to the administration's broader approach to staffing federal prosecutor offices across the country.
Chattah took over as interim U.S. attorney on April 1, 2025, for a term capped at 120 days under federal law. Shortly before that window closed in late July, she resigned the interim post. Bondi then designated her as first assistant U.S. attorney and separately appointed her as a special attorney, moves the DOJ argued allowed Chattah to continue running the office without interruption.
Federal public defenders in Nevada challenged that arrangement in multiple unrelated criminal cases. They argued Chattah's continued authority was unlawful and called for cases she oversaw to be dismissed.
U.S. District Judge David Campbell sided with the public defenders in September, ruling Chattah was not validly leading the office. The Trump administration appealed.
On Monday, the Ninth Circuit panel affirmed Campbell's order. U.S. Circuit Judge Eric Miller, a Trump appointee, wrote for the unanimous panel. He found that under the specific Federal Vacancies Reform Act provision the DOJ relied on, a first assistant could automatically become acting U.S. attorney only if that person already held the first-assistant position when the vacancy first occurred. Chattah did not. She was placed into the role after the fact, specifically to keep her in the chair.
Miller's opinion went further, closing the delegation backdoor as well. As Fox News reported, the judge wrote:
"Nor can the Attorney General create a de facto Acting U.S. Attorney by delegating all of the functions and duties of the U.S. Attorney to someone else."
That language is pointed. It says the DOJ cannot do through delegation what Congress forbids through direct appointment, a principle that reaches well beyond Nevada.
Chattah's case is not isolated. The Third U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals found in December that Alina Habba, a former personal lawyer for President Trump who served as acting U.S. attorney in New Jersey, was not lawfully holding the post. That court disqualified her from supervising cases as well.
And the pattern has continued to expand. A federal judge in Southern California ruled that acting U.S. Attorney Bill Essayli was serving unlawfully after his own 120-day interim term expired on July 29, the Washington Examiner reported. Essayli was barred from the acting U.S. attorney role but permitted to continue as first assistant. Attorney Mark Windsor, who argued the case, told the court the administration's approach amounted to "an intentional, knowing, deliberate attempt to circumvent some of the key safeguards within our Constitution."
The common thread is the 120-day limit Congress wrote into federal law. When a permanent U.S. attorney is not confirmed within that window, the statute envisions federal district court judges appointing an interim replacement, not the attorney general recycling the same person under a different title. The administration's workarounds have now failed in at least three federal circuits.
The broader context matters. Federal courts have been active in checking executive authority on multiple fronts, including recent rulings blocking executive grant conditions for West Coast municipalities. But the U.S. attorney disputes carry particular weight because they touch the integrity of federal criminal prosecutions themselves.
The district court ruling that started the Nevada fight was blunt. Judge Campbell found that the government's procedure for keeping Chattah in place "was never intended by Congress," AP News reported. That framing, that the DOJ was not merely stretching a statute but using it in a way Congress never contemplated, set the stage for the Ninth Circuit's broader rejection of both the succession and delegation theories.
Chattah, formerly Nevada's Republican National Committee member, was never nominated by Trump for the permanent U.S. attorney post. Instead, the president nominated George Kelesis, a Las Vegas criminal defense attorney, in February 2026. Breitbart reported that Kelesis is seen as a potentially less controversial pick who may face an easier path to Senate confirmation. Nevada Senator Catherine Cortez Masto's office said the senator would conduct a "tough, thorough interview with Kelesis."
Whether Kelesis can be confirmed quickly enough to resolve the leadership vacuum in Nevada remains an open question. The office has been operating under a legal cloud for months.
One detail worth noting: the Ninth Circuit panel that ruled against the DOJ included two Trump appointees. Judge Miller, who wrote the opinion, and U.S. District Judge Stanley Blumenfeld Jr., sitting by designation, were both named to the bench by Trump. U.S. Circuit Judge Sidney Thomas completed the panel. The ruling was unanimous.
That composition undercuts any suggestion that the decision was driven by partisan hostility from the bench. These were judges the president himself selected, applying the statute as written. The ongoing debate over judicial independence from the executive branch gains fresh relevance when the judiciary checks the administration's own legal theories, and does so through the president's own nominees.
The DOJ has not publicly indicated whether it plans to seek further review. The administration could petition for rehearing before a larger Ninth Circuit panel or ask the Supreme Court to weigh in, particularly given that similar rulings have now come from multiple circuits. The Supreme Court has shown willingness to take up major executive-power disputes in recent terms.
The practical fallout is not abstract. Chattah is disqualified from supervising three criminal cases. Defense attorneys in those cases argued her unlawful authority tainted the prosecutions. The ruling does not automatically dismiss those cases, but it strips the office of the leadership that was directing them.
In Nevada, federal law enforcement work continues, including cases like a recent firearms trafficking prosecution tied to Mexican drug cartels. The U.S. Attorney's Office needs stable, lawful leadership to handle that caseload. Every week without a confirmed U.S. attorney is a week the office operates with diminished authority and open legal questions about who is actually in charge.
The administration has the tools to fix this. The Senate confirmation process exists for a reason. Using it, rather than engineering workarounds that courts keep striking down, would put these offices on solid legal footing and protect the prosecutions that depend on them.
Congress wrote the 120-day limit to force the executive branch to submit nominees for Senate review. Courts in three circuits have now enforced that limit. At some point, the lesson stops being a legal setback and starts being a self-inflicted one.
