A federal court picked a U.S. attorney for upstate New York—then the Trump Justice Department fired him within hours, igniting a fresh constitutional tug-of-war over who really controls federal prosecutions. Judges Appoint Kinsella, DOJ Fires Him Within Hours Federal judges appointed Donald Kinsella to run the U.S. attorney’s office in the Northern District of New York, a step courts can take when an interim appointment expires, and the Senate-confirmed slot remains vacant. Within hours, Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche announced Kinsella’s removal in a public social media statement, arguing that judges do not choose U.S. attorneys and that the Constitution assigns that authority to the president. The rapid reversal left the office’s leadership status unclear. The public nature of the dismissal added fuel to an already tense separation-of-powers fight. The administration’s position, as stated by Blanche, frames this as a straightforward Article II issue: prosecutors who represent the United States should be selected through the executive branch’s appointment power. Critics in the judiciary, however, have pointed to Congress’s vacancy statutes and limits on repeated “acting” appointments, saying those rules exist to prevent end-runs around Senate confirmation and to protect the legitimacy of prosecutions. The Sarcone Disqualification and the Letitia James Subpoenas The Kinsella episode sits atop an earlier controversy involving John Sarcone III, the Trump-aligned interim U.S. attorney who preceded him. A federal judge disqualified Sarcone after concluding the administration used a procedural approach to keep him in the role beyond the typical 120-day limit for interim service. That ruling also quashed subpoenas issued to New York Attorney General Letitia James that Sarcone had signed, a significant development because it created immediate legal risk for investigative steps taken under a disputed appointment. Judge Lorna Schofield’s written opinion captured the core judicial concern: when the executive branch “skirts restraints put in place by Congress” and then uses that power in politically sensitive investigations, it risks acting without lawful authority. The Justice Department has appealed Schofield’s decision, meaning the underlying dispute is not settled. For voters who care about constitutional structure, the key point is less about personalities and more about whether prosecutions—and subpoenas—can be undermined later if a court finds the appointing authority was invalid. A Wider Pattern: New Jersey and Virginia Rulings Raise the Stakes New York is not the only battleground. In New Jersey, an appeals court upheld the disqualification of Alina Habba after a dispute over extending an interim appointment. In the Eastern District of Virginia, a judge found Lindsey Halligan’s interim appointment unlawful under the Appointments Clause, then tossed indictments she obtained against former FBI Director James Comey and Attorney General Letitia James. Other districts, including Nevada and California, have experienced similar friction over interim leadership and the length of time “acting” officials can remain in place. What This Means for Accountability, Due Process, and Constitutional Limits The practical consequence of these clashes is instability—both inside U.S. attorney offices and for the public expecting consistent enforcement of federal law. When courts question a prosecutor’s legal authority, defendants can challenge indictments, targets can contest subpoenas, and cases can be delayed or dismissed. From a conservative, rule-of-law perspective, that is a serious problem: strong enforcement depends on a clean constitutional process. The administration’s appeals may clarify the lines, but until then, uncertainty can weaken public confidence and complicate legitimate investigations. US attorney in New York appointed by judges is quickly fired by White House | Just The News https://t.co/iPjJC38T4E — Angie (@angie_anson) February 12, 2026 The political overlay is impossible to ignore because some disputed actions have involved high-profile figures like Letitia James. Still, the research available here does not establish motive beyond what courts and officials have stated; it chiefly shows an institutional conflict over appointment authority and statutory limits. If the executive branch wants maximum control without legal risk, the durable path is Senate-confirmed U.S. attorneys. If courts keep finding appointment violations, future prosecutions could face continuing challenges—exactly the kind of procedural chaos that frustrates citizens who want equal justice applied consistently. Sources: US attorney appointed by federal judges in New York abruptly fired by the Trump administration. DOJ Fires Acting US Attorney in NY Who Judges appointees Battle over US attorneys continues after DOJ fires new prosecutor appointed by judges