Nevada USA Attorney Disqualified by Judge: A Major Legal Blow,Legal Ruling

In a striking legal development, a federal judge in Nevada has disqualified Sigal Chattah— the Trump administration’s appointee as acting U.S. Attorney in Nevada — from overseeing four federal criminal cases, ruling that her appointment was legally invalid. This decision has significant implications, not only for the specific prosecutions involved, but also for broader debates over the separation of powers, executive appointment authority, checks and balances, and the rule of law.

This article explores the background leading up to the ruling, the judicial reasoning, the immediate and longer-term legal consequences, and how this case fits within bigger national trends.

Background: Who Is Sigal Chattah & How She Came to the Role

To understand how this legal blow emerged, it’s essential to review Chattah’s appointment history and the controversies surrounding it.

Origins & Political Connections

• Sigal Chattah is a conservative lawyer, previously active in Republican politics; she had served as a Republican National Committee committeewoman, and had run for Nevada Attorney General in 2022. 

• Her political ties and prior public statements drew opposition, especially from Democratic senators in Nevada, and concerns were raised about impartiality if she were confirmed to lead federal prosecutions. 

Appointment as Interim U.S. Attorney

• In March 2025, Chattah was named as an interim U.S. Attorney for the District of Nevada, a position conventionally limited under law to 120 days. 

• Because no Senate-confirmed U.S. Attorney was nominated and confirmed within that 120-day window, the Justice Department attempted to extend her involvement by reclassifying her into an acting role under different statutory authority. 

Maneuvering to Maintain Her Role

• As her 120-day interim designation neared expiration, the administration sought to preserve her de facto leadership by moving her into the position of first assistant U.S. Attorney, making her eligible to become acting U.S. Attorney under alternate authority for another 210 days. 

• Critics and defense attorneys challenged this approach, arguing it was a deliberate attempt to circumvent the requirement for Senate confirmation and statutory constraints in the Federal Vacancies Reform Act (FVRA). 

• More than 100 retired federal and state judges publicly expressed opposition to her permanent appointment, citing concerns about her rhetoric, public statements, and potential partisan motivations. 

Thus, by mid-2025 Chattah had already been serving in an extended acting capacity — beyond the initial 120 days — under a controversial personnel scheme.

The Disqualification Ruling: Facts & Legal Holding

On September 30, 2025, a U.S. District Court judge, David G. Campbell, issued a 32-page ruling disqualifying Chattah from supervising or participating in four criminal prosecutions. The judge found that her continued role would be unlawful given the procedural irregularities in her appointment. 

The Core Legal Grounds

Judge Campbell’s ruling rests largely on statutory interpretation of the Federal Vacancies Reform Act (FVRA), and constitutional principles of separation of powers:

1. Expiration of 120-day Interim Term
   The judge held that Chattah’s initial 120-day interim designation expired in July 2025, and thereafter she had no lawful basis to continue in that role. 

2. Improper Use of First Assistant Designation
   Campbell rejected the government’s strategy of reclassifying Chattah as first assistant U.S. Attorney solely to extend her service, noting that Congress did not intend for the executive to manipulate titles to bypass limits. He wrote:

   “The procedure used by the government to appoint Ms. Chattah was never intended by Congress.” 

   He saw the tactics as undermining the checks that Congress built into the appointment process. 

3. Unlawful Delegation & Supervision Risk
   Because Chattah’s appointment was found invalid, any supervision she exerts—even indirectly—would be unlawful. Thus, she must be disqualified not only from direct participation but also from oversight of the related prosecutions. 

4. Preservation of Indictments (But Restriction of Supervision)
   Importantly, the judge did not throw out the indictments in these four cases. The charges remain intact, but Chattah is barred from any involvement. Other prosecutors currently assigned must file certifications affirming that she has no supervisory role. 

Campbell also criticized the Justice Department’s broader pattern of using extended acting appointments in other states to evade Senate scrutiny — observing that similar moves had been challenged elsewhere. 

Procedural Path Forward

The judge gave the DOJ seven days to advise the court whether Chattah is exerting any control. He left open multiple paths:

• The President could appoint a properly authorized acting U.S. Attorney (within statutory constraints)

• District judges in Nevada could step in to appoint an interim

• Or a permanent nominee could be sent to the Senate for confirmation to fill the vacancy. ruling. 

Repercussions & Significance

This decision is more than a procedural technicality. It carries wide-ranging ramifications — for the administration, the justice system, political accountability, and future appointment strategies.

For the Trump Administration & DOJ Strategy

• This ruling undermines the executive branch’s ability to retain controversial appointees in high-stakes prosecutorial roles without Senate confirmation.

• It sends a signal that courts will not rubber-stamp creative title-shifting that bypasses congressional oversight.

• It may disrupt ongoing investigations or prosecutions in Nevada, requiring reassignment or retooling.

• The ruling adds momentum to legal challenges against other similar acting U.S. Attorneys in states such as New Jersey, New York, California, and New Mexico. 

For the Defendants in the Affected Cases

• Their counsel succeeded in removing a prosecutor whose authority was deemed unlawful, which strengthens their position regarding due process and fairness.

• Yet, the underlying indictments stand, so the proceedings will not automatically collapse — the trial may continue under different prosecutorial leadership.

• The risk remains: appeals based on the disqualification might broaden legal arguments about the fairness or legitimacy of prior steps.

For Separation of Powers & Institutional Norms

• The judgment reaffirms the constitutional principle that the Executive’s appointment powers are not unlimited; Congress can place guardrails (via statutes like FVRA).

• It reinforces the role of the judiciary as a check on executive overreach.

• It signals that statutory limits — especially those tied to Senate advice-and-consent — cannot be subverted by internal reassignments.

Broader Precedent & Legal Trends

• This ruling is the second in recent months invalidating Trump-era acting U.S. Attorneys’ authority (after a New Jersey case) — together they may coalesce into a body of law pressure against extended interim appointments. The 

• The decision could fuel future litigation challenging other DOJ appointments that relied on similar mechanisms.

• Congress may respond by revisiting the FVRA or modifying constraints around interim appointments.

Challenges, Critiques & Potential Complications

No ruling of this magnitude is risk-free or without dissenting perspectives. Below are some counterpoints, open questions, and potential pitfalls.

Critiques & Dissenting Views

• Some might argue that the government’s interpretation of the “first assistant” designation is technically allowed under statute — a reading that Campbell rejected but which might find favor on appeal.

• The DOJ may contend that strict enforcement of FVRA limits could impair continuity in law enforcement in districts that lack confirmed U.S. Attorneys.

• Political actors may frame this as judicial activism or interference in prosecutorial discretion.

Appeal & Higher Court Review

• The decision will likely be appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (which covers Nevada). A reversal or narrowing at the appellate level is possible.

• If the matter escalates, the Supreme Court could eventually weigh in, particularly on how far executive flexibility may go in filling vacancies.

• The duration of litigation may leave uncertainty in Nevada’s federal prosecutorial leadership for months.

Impact on Other Cases & Offices

• Offices in other states that employed similar appointment strategies may face parallel challenges.

• Cases already adjudicated or currently in trial in those districts may be vulnerable to motions asserting that those prosecutors lacked authority.

• There’s risk of disruption: reassignment of cases, gaps in leadership, internal turmoil, and resource constraints.

Practical Transition & Continuity

• Prosecutors working under Chattah must confirm they received no direction from her in the disqualified matters.

• The DOJ or acting authority must ensure a smooth handover so as not to prejudice ongoing investigations or prosecutions.

• Defense counsel may seek further relief or dismissal if they can show substantive prejudice from the prior improperly supervised stages.

Lessons & Takeaways

From this ruling, several broader lessons emerge:

1. Statutory constraints matter — even in times of political urgency, Congress’s rules (like the FVRA) impose binding limits.

2. Title-shifting is risky — attempts to restructure personnel to extend authority will likely be scrutinized and potentially struck down.

3. Independence in prosecutorial roles is vital — appointment irregularity erodes public confidence in fairness and legal legitimacy.

4. Judicial oversight is a critical brake — in disputes about executive power, courts remain a key line of defense for structural balance.

5. Contingencies must be planned — administrations placing appointees in “acting” roles must anticipate legal challenges and transitions.

Conclusion

The disqualification of Sigal Chattah from overseeing key federal prosecutions in Nevada marks a dramatic admonishment of procedural overreach. In striking down the appointment as unlawful, Judge Campbell has reaffirmed that executive ambition cannot override statutory guardrails or congressional prerogatives.

While the indictments themselves survived, the decision resonates well beyond Nevada, signaling that courts may no longer tolerate creative methods to bypass Senate confirmation, especially for prosecutors wielding substantial power. The fallout is likely to ripple across districts, invite appeals, and reshape how future administrations manage top-level vacancies.