Ruling expected soon in cases challenging Nevada U.S. attorney’s appointment
Summary
A federal judge told attorneys he expects to issue a ruling by the end of the month in challenges to Sigal Chattah’s appointment as Nevada’s acting U.S. attorney. The federal public defender’s office has moved to disqualify Chattah and to dismiss indictments against several defendants, arguing her term expired and her subsequent appointment as acting U.S. attorney was ineffective.
Prosecutors counter that Chattah is validly serving and that defendants have not been harmed, saying the grand jury process and indictments remain sound. The public defenders repeatedly cited a recent New Jersey ruling finding another acting U.S. attorney — Alina Habba — unlawfully appointed.
Key Points
- Judge David Campbell indicated a decision is expected by the end of the month after a hearing on disqualification and dismissal motions.
- The federal public defender argues Chattah’s interim term expired and her acting appointment after 29 July was without “force or effect,” seeking dismissal with prejudice.
- Assistant U.S. Attorney Daniel Schiess told the court defendants suffered no prejudice and there is no basis to dismiss indictments.
- Defenders relied on a New Jersey decision (Alina Habba) as persuasive authority that improper appointments can invalidate prosecutions.
- The outcome could affect ongoing Nevada prosecutions and influence how interim and acting U.S. attorney appointments are handled elsewhere.
Context and relevance
Chattah has served in the U.S. attorney’s office since April, first as interim and then — she says — as acting U.S. attorney after a presidential appointment the day before her interim term would have expired. Nevada Democrats Senators Jacky Rosen and Catherine Cortez Masto have opposed her nomination, and the dispute has prompted federal public defenders to ask judges to appoint a proper interim U.S. attorney.
Because the challenge raises procedural and constitutional questions about how interim and acting U.S. attorneys are appointed, the judge’s ruling may carry consequences beyond the individual defendants: convictions or indictments could be overturned, and the decision may be cited in similar challenges nationally.
Why should I read this?
Quick and blunt: if you care about criminal cases in Nevada, legal fairness, or how technical appointment rules can blow up prosecutions, this one matters. A judge’s ruling could toss indictments or change who’s allowed to prosecute — so it’s not just court-room theatre, it’s real-world impact. Read the detail if you want to know which cases might be affected and why the timing of an appointment matters.