Appeals court upholds Sigal Chattah’s disqualification as US attorney in Nevada

Appeals Court Upholds Sigal Chattah Disqualification

Provpnadvice.com – Appeals court upholds Sigal Chattah’s removal from the Nevada federal prosecutor’s office, according to a 36-page opinion handed down Monday by a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The ruling confirms that Sigal Chattah lacks legal authority to direct criminal prosecutions in the district and bars her from overseeing a group of defendants who formally contested the validity of her appointment. The decision closes out a months-long constitutional standoff between the executive branch and the judiciary over who may occupy a vacant U.S. Attorney’s seat.

The panel’s reasoning directly rebuts the administration’s attempt to exploit ambiguities in federal succession statutes and extend an interim appointment beyond its statutory ceiling. By rejecting that approach, the Ninth Circuit sends a clear signal to every U.S. Attorney’s office where comparable maneuvers have been floated or deployed.

Statutory Framework and the Panel’s Holding

The dispute turns on the Federal Vacancies Reform Act of 1998, which Congress passed to keep government functioning when a Senate-confirmed post goes empty. Under the Act’s default rule, the first assistant to the confirmed officer assumes the acting role the instant the vacancy opens. The Ninth Circuit drew a decisive boundary: that automatic succession triggers only if the first assistant was already in the position at the precise moment the vacancy arose.

Because Chattah had never served under a validly appointed U.S. Attorney in Nevada, the court held the succession mechanism simply did not reach her circumstances. The panel also shut down a second executive-branch workaround—the wholesale delegation of prosecutorial functions from one official to another as a means of manufacturing an acting status.

“It does not apply to a first assistant who never served under a validly appointed official,” Judge Eric Miller, a Trump appointee, wrote for the panel. “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.”

Joining Miller were Judge Sidney Thomas, a Clinton-era appointee, and Judge Stanley Blumenfeld, another Trump appointee. The bipartisan composition of the panel underscores that the question turned on statutory text rather than partisan alignment.

Timeline: How the Role Was Assumed and Then Stripped Away

Chattah, who had previously chaired the Republican National Committee’s Nevada operation, stepped into the interim U.S. Attorney position in April 2025. Federal law caps such an appointment at 120 days absent Senate confirmation. One day before that window was set to expire, she resigned from the interim role. Then-Attorney General Pam Bondi subsequently invoked a cascade of legal mechanisms designed to let Chattah continue functioning in an acting capacity well past the statutory deadline.

The first judicial challenge to that arrangement came in late September from a federal district court in Arizona. Judge David Campbell found that the procedural path sustaining Chattah’s authority was “never intended by Congress” and ordered her barred from supervising multiple criminal prosecutions already underway in her district.

“Given the Court’s conclusion that Ms. Chattah is not validly serving as Acting U.S. Attorney, her involvement in these cases would be unlawful,” Judge Campbell wrote.

Campbell stayed his disqualification order while the government pursued its appeal—the very challenge now resolved by the Ninth Circuit panel.

Justice Department Eyes a Supreme Court Fight

The department did not accept the appellate outcome quietly. In a written statement, a Justice Department spokesperson declared: “We disagree with the 9th Circuit’s decision and we plan to appeal this decision to the Supreme Court.” That announcement sets up a potential certiorari petition asking the nation’s highest court to weigh how broadly the Vacancies Act’s succession language can be stretched by executive delegation.

A Recurring Pattern in Federal Courts

The Nevada ruling is the latest in a string of judicial rejections aimed at the administration’s broader effort to place prosecutors aligned with President Trump’s agenda into U.S. Attorney’s offices nationwide. A nearly identical tactic was deployed to retain Alina Habba—Trump’s former personal defense attorney—as U.S. Attorney for New Jersey. An appeals court struck down her appointment in December, applying the same statutory logic the Ninth Circuit has now applied in Nevada. Together, these decisions suggest that federal courts across multiple circuits are converging on a narrow reading of the Vacancies Act’s succession provisions.

Frequently Asked Questions

What exactly did the Ninth Circuit decide? The panel held that Sigal Chattah cannot serve as acting U.S. Attorney for Nevada because she never occupied the first-assistant role at the moment the vacancy opened, and because the Attorney General cannot manufacture an acting status through delegation of duties.

What happens to cases already assigned under her supervision? Defendants who formally challenged her appointment are no longer subject to her direction. Other cases in the district will need to be reassigned to a validly appointed or confirmed U.S. Attorney or acting official.

Can the administration still take this to the Supreme Court? Yes. The Justice Department has publicly stated its intent to file a certiorari petition, asking the Supreme Court to review how broadly the Vacancies Act’s succession language permits executive delegation.

Does this ruling affect other states? While binding only within the Ninth Circuit, the reasoning mirrors a December decision striking down a parallel appointment in New Jersey, suggesting other circuits may reach the same conclusion under their own review.