Judge says Sigal Chattah is not validly serving as Nevada’s acting US attorney
Summary
U.S. District Judge David Campbell ruled that Sigal Chattah is not validly serving as Nevada’s acting U.S. attorney and disqualified her from supervising prosecutions of four people indicted after she was named to the role. Campbell found the Department of Justice’s personnel moves — shifting Chattah from an interim appointment to first assistant and then to acting U.S. attorney — violated the Federal Vacancies Reform Act. The judge said Chattah’s involvement would be unlawful and outlined three ways to lawfully fill the post: a proper temporary appointment under the statute, an appointment by Nevada’s federal judges, or a presidential nomination with Senate confirmation.
The ruling does not void the indictments themselves but requires that other prosecutors affirm Chattah is not supervising the cases. The Justice Department contests the decision and is expected to appeal; the case mirrors a similar ruling in New Jersey and feeds into broader conflicts over politicised U.S. attorney appointments nationwide.
Key Points
- Judge David Campbell disqualified Sigal Chattah from supervising four prosecutions, concluding she was not validly serving as acting U.S. attorney.
- The court found the Department of Justice’s personnel manoeuvres violated the Federal Vacancies Reform Act.
- Chattah was first appointed as a 120‑day interim U.S. attorney, then reclassified via a first assistant appointment to extend her term by 210 days.
- The ruling offers three lawful paths forward: a compliant temporary presidential appointment, selection by the district’s judges, or a Senate‑confirmed nominee.
- The indictments remain in place; other prosecutors must affirm Chattah is not supervising the cases.
- The decision echoes a similar New Jersey ruling and highlights national concerns about politicised U.S. attorney appointments under the current administration.
Why should I read this?
Short version: this could mess with prosecutions and is part of a bigger fight over who gets to run federal law enforcement. If you care about fair trials, rule‑of‑law questions or how political hires are changing the Justice Department, this matters — and fast.
Context and relevance
The ruling tests the Federal Vacancies Reform Act’s limits on executive power and arrives amid a wave of contested U.S. attorney appointments. It has practical consequences for criminal cases in Nevada — prosecutors may be disqualified, decisions could be delayed, and defence teams may push for further remedies. Nationally, the case feeds into debates about politicising prosecutions and the bounds of presidential personnel authority; it may affect similar challenges in other districts and ongoing high‑profile investigations.
