A constitutional tug-of-war over who controls America’s top prosecutors just erupted in upstate New York—with a judge-picked U.S. attorney getting fired within hours by the Trump DOJ.
Judges Appoint Kinsella, DOJ Fires Him Hours Later
Federal judges in the Northern District of New York appointed Donald Kinsella as acting U.S. attorney after earlier court action knocked out the prior interim leader, John Sarcone III. By Wednesday night, Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche announced Kinsella’s firing in a post on X, arguing that “judges don’t pick U.S. Attorneys” and that presidential authority controls the post. The result was immediate whiplash inside a key federal prosecutor’s office.
White House Presidential Personnel Office head Dan Scavino amplified the message online, telling Kinsella to “check your email” after Blanche’s post. DOJ officials reportedly did not provide further details publicly, and news reports noted the office’s leadership situation remained unsettled after the abrupt termination. The speed and public nature of the firing turned a normally quiet staffing decision into a national test of separation of powers and the rules governing interim prosecutors.
The Trigger: A Judge Disqualifies Sarcone and Quashes Subpoenas
The flashpoint dates back to January, when U.S. District Judge Lorna Schofield disqualified Sarcone and quashed subpoenas related to an investigation involving New York Attorney General Letitia James. Reporting describes Sarcone as lacking prosecutorial experience and leading a probe that put a prominent Trump adversary in the crosshairs. Schofield’s ruling framed the executive branch’s maneuvering as an improper attempt to sidestep congressionally set limits on interim appointments and related authority.
The case matters beyond personalities because it sits at the intersection of two basic conservative concerns: restoring accountability in politicized institutions and respecting the constitutional structure. Courts are positioned to enforce statutes such as the Federal Vacancies Reform Act, while presidents have clear Article II responsibilities to “take Care” that the laws are faithfully executed. When each branch pushes its maximum advantage, ordinary citizens see another Washington power struggle—but the practical consequence is whether DOJ’s prosecutorial power is being exercised under clear, lawful authority.
The Legal Framework: FVRA Timers vs. Article II Control
U.S. attorneys usually reach office through a familiar pipeline: presidential nomination and Senate confirmation. When vacancies arise, Congress has provided interim mechanisms, including time limits that can return the decision to the courts if the political branches don’t complete confirmations. Reporting on this dispute highlights the Federal Vacancies Reform Act’s 120-day limit and the longstanding practice that, after certain conditions, district courts may appoint an acting U.S. attorney.
Blanche’s public response leaned hard on Article II—essentially asserting that prosecutors answer to the president, not to district judges. That argument will likely be tested in appellate filings and possibly beyond, because courts have also emphasized Congress’ power to structure appointments and temporary service in accordance with the Appointments Clause. What is missing from public reporting so far is a detailed DOJ legal memo laying out a full statutory and constitutional reconciliation; instead, the administration’s position is largely conveyed through the firing itself and ongoing appeals.
Here is the notice announcing the appointment of Donald Kinsella, posted on the district court’s website just a few hours ago.
Now Blanche, the #2 official at DOJ, says Kinsella is “fired.” https://t.co/2VEeUnxoXR pic.twitter.com/vipbpIBbMz
— Anna Bower (@AnnaBower) February 12, 2026
Why This Isn’t an Isolated New York Fight
National reporting ties the Northern New York clash to similar disputes in other districts, including litigation over interim U.S. attorneys and the validity of actions they took while in office. ABC News described court rulings that invalidated appointments elsewhere and noted fallout, including dismissed indictments tied to those appointments. Politico and ABC also described ongoing appeals by Attorney General Pam Bondi’s DOJ, signaling the administration intends to press the broader principle rather than treat this as a one-off personnel spat.
For voters who watched the Biden-era DOJ controversies and the broader “two-tier” justice debate, this story lands with a familiar thud: it shows how fragile and politicized federal prosecution can look when appointment rules are contested in real time. At the same time, conservative constitutionalists should notice the tension: winning the policy fight is not the same thing as winning the rule-of-law argument. Until appeals clarify the balance between statutory vacancy rules and presidential control, this fight will continue to reshape who can lawfully wield prosecutorial power.
Sources:
DOJ fires acting US attorney in NY who was appointed by judges
US attorney appointed by federal judges in New York abruptly fired by Trump administration
Battle over US attorneys continues as DOJ fires new prosecutor