A federal judge in Nevada has pulled the plug on Sigal Chattah, a Trump-appointed acting U.S. attorney, barring her from overseeing four criminal cases due to a procedural misstep.
According to The Hill, Chattah’s tenure as acting U.S. attorney for Nevada exceeded the legal limit of 120 days without Senate confirmation, prompting U.S. District Judge David G. Campbell to step in. Her continued involvement was deemed unlawful, and she’s been ordered to step back from these prosecutions.
This ruling isn’t just a technical slap on the wrist; it raises serious questions about the legitimacy of interim appointments under the Trump administration. Campbell pointed out that Chattah’s role, extended beyond the allowed timeframe, undermined the traditional process where federal courts can appoint a replacement after 120 days.
Chattah took the helm as Nevada’s interim U.S. attorney in March, initially under a temporary mandate. A federal law invoked by the Trump administration granted her an extension, effectively sidelining the district court’s authority to name a successor.
But Judge Campbell wasn’t buying the workaround, declaring her ongoing participation in cases a clear violation of federal guidelines. His order demands that government attorneys confirm within seven days that Chattah is no longer pulling strings on the disqualified cases.
Let’s be frank: stretching acting appointments beyond legal limits smells like a power grab, not a solution. When rules are bent to keep loyalists in place, it erodes trust in the justice system’s impartiality.
Chattah isn’t the only Trump appointee facing this kind of judicial pushback. Alina Habba, once a personal lawyer to President Trump and acting U.S. attorney for New Jersey, was similarly ruled unfit to serve for dodging Senate confirmation.
These parallel cases suggest a troubling trend of sidestepping accountability under the guise of temporary roles. It’s hard to ignore the optics of placing political allies in key positions without the proper vetting process.
The Justice Department, when pressed by The Hill for a response on Chattah’s removal, stayed silent. That quiet speaks volumes about the administration’s willingness to defend these questionable appointments.
Campbell’s ruling, as reported by Reuters, explicitly stated that Chattah’s involvement “would be unlawful” after exceeding the 120-day limit. This isn’t a gray area; it’s a hard line meant to protect the judiciary from being turned into a political chessboard.
Chattah, previously the Nevada chair for the Republican National Committee, carries a partisan resume that only fuels skepticism about her placement. While loyalty to a cause isn’t a crime, it shouldn’t trump the legal standards that govern our courts.
The public deserves prosecutors who’ve been properly vetted, not placeholders riding on executive fiat. This case is a reminder that process matters as much as outcome in upholding justice.
As this situation unfolds, the spotlight turns to how future appointments will be handled under similar circumstances. Will loopholes continue to be exploited, or will there be a push for stricter adherence to confirmation protocols?
The integrity of our legal system hangs in the balance on whether leaders prioritize the rule of law over political expediency. Cases like Chattah’s aren’t just about one person; they’re a test of whether we value checks and balances over unchecked influence.
In the end, Judge Campbell’s decision sends a message that even well-connected appointees aren’t above the law. It’s a small but necessary step toward ensuring our courts remain a bastion of fairness, not a playground for partisan maneuvers.
