Story perspectives

Second Circuit Rejects Sarcone’s Acting U.S. Attorney Role

8/22/2026

Summary

Sarcone Subpoena Barred

The U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals ruled John Sarcone III served unlawfully as acting U.S. attorney for New York.
The court barred Sarcone’s subpoenas seeking records from Attorney General Letitia James’s office.
Judge Guido Calabresi wrote the majority opinion, joined by Judge Maria Araujo Kahn.
Judge Michael Park dissented, supporting the Justice Department’s interpretation, which says it will appeal to the Supreme Court.

Summary

Sarcone Charges Plot

John Sarcone III, former Trump campaign attorney, was appointed acting U.S. attorney by Pam Bondi, former AG.
On the day, Sarcone charged an Albany woman accused of plotting to bomb Capitol after allegiance to ISIS.
A subpoena sought records related to the $464 million fraud judgment James won against President Donald Trump, voided as excessive.
The $464 million judgment stemmed from James’s 2022 lawsuit alleging Trump inflated property values to secure loans.

History

Historical Context

In 1974, the Supreme Court’s United States v. Nixon decision rejected executive privilege claims, ordering President Richard Nixon to surrender Oval Office tapes. The 8-2 ruling, authored by Justice Harry Blackmun, affirmed judicial authority over the executive branch and set a precedent for 1,000-page subpoena battles. Today, Judge Guido Calabresi’s Second Circuit opinion blocks John Sarcone III’s subpoenas targeting Letitia James’s office, echoing Nixon’s contested document demands. The decision may compel the Justice Department, represented by Michael Park, to appeal, reinforcing judicial checks on politically charged investigations like the $464 million Trump fraud judgment.

1 of 3

Sarcone Subpoena Barred

The U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals ruled John Sarcone III served unlawfully as acting U.S. attorney for New York.
The court barred Sarcone’s subpoenas seeking records from Attorney General Letitia James’s office.
Judge Guido Calabresi wrote the majority opinion, joined by Judge Maria Araujo Kahn.
Judge Michael Park dissented, supporting the Justice Department’s interpretation, which says it will appeal to the Supreme Court.

1 / 3