Ninth Circuit rules Trump-appointed prosecutor could not serve as Nevada’s acting U.S. attorney

The Ninth Circuit ruled Aug. 17, 2026, that Sigal Chattah could not lawfully serve as acting U.S. attorney for Nevada after her temporary appointment expired, and affirmed her disqualification from participating in or supervising three federal prosecutions.

The decision concerns the cases against Devonte Jackson, Giann Icob Salazar del Real and Jorge Enriquez Jr. It did not dismiss their indictments or decide whether the defendants are entitled to that remedy.

What the court decided

The appeals court held that the Attorney General could not make Chattah acting U.S. attorney by naming her first assistant after the office was already vacant. Under the Federal Vacancies Reform Act, automatic succession applies to a first assistant who held that position when the vacancy occurred.

Chattah did not hold that position when Nevada’s U.S. attorney post became vacant, the court said. The vacancy began when Jason Frierson resigned on Jan. 17, 2025. First Assistant Sue Fahami then became acting U.S. attorney under the federal vacancies law.

The court also rejected the government’s alternative argument that the Attorney General could give Chattah all of the U.S. attorney’s powers through a general delegation. The panel said the Federal Vacancies Reform Act is the exclusive way to temporarily authorize an acting official to perform the duties of a vacant executive-branch office.

How the appointment unfolded

The Attorney General appointed Chattah interim U.S. attorney effective April 1, 2025, under 28 U.S.C. § 546. The statute limited that appointment to 120 days, so the term expired July 30, 2025, according to the opinion.

Chattah resigned as interim U.S. attorney on July 28, 2025. The same day, the Attorney General designated her as first assistant and separately appointed her as a special attorney authorized to conduct civil and criminal proceedings in Nevada.

The defendants were indicted on felony charges on or after July 29, 2025. Assistant U.S. attorneys signed the indictments, not Chattah herself, but each indictment included her name in the signature block and identified her as acting U.S. attorney.

Why the indictments were not dismissed

The defendants argued that Chattah’s unlawful acting designation invalidated their indictments. The district court denied the motions to dismiss but disqualified Chattah from participating in or supervising the prosecutions. That disqualification order was stayed while the Justice Department appealed.

The district court distinguished Chattah’s authority from that of the assistant U.S. attorneys who signed the indictments. It found that those prosecutors derived their authority from the Attorney General rather than from Chattah’s position as U.S. attorney.

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the disqualification order. But it dismissed the defendants’ cross-appeals over indictment dismissal because it lacked appellate jurisdiction to review that issue at this stage.

That means the appeals court did not decide whether the defendants should ultimately receive dismissal or another remedy because of the unlawful appointment. Those questions remain for proceedings in the individual criminal cases.

What happens next

The opinion says President Donald Trump nominated George Kelesis for Nevada’s permanent U.S. attorney position on Feb. 11, 2026. The opinion establishes the nomination but does not establish that Kelesis has been confirmed or is serving in the job.

Chattah has continued in the office under the title of first assistant U.S. attorney. That role is distinct from the putative acting-U.S.-attorney designation the Ninth Circuit found unlawful. The appellate ruling specifically disqualifies her from participating in or supervising the three prosecutions covered by the case.

The decision matters beyond the three defendants. It sets a limit on how the executive branch may extend a temporary federal prosecutor’s control after the statutory appointment period ends, while leaving unresolved what remedy defendants may obtain and how the Nevada U.S. Attorney’s Office will be led until the permanent appointment process is completed.

Sources

• Ninth Circuit opinion in United States v. Jackson, Salazar del Real and Enriquez
• Associated Press: Appeals court says U.S. attorney in Nevada can’t legally serve in the role

Look for updates to this story

Related News

• Nevada challenges federal Colorado River plan that could cut its allocation by more than 70%
• New Jersey permanently allows cocktails to go under law signed Friday
• New Hampshire voters face a fluid mail-in ballot fight before the November election
• Nebraska disaster survivors get temporary Medicaid work-rule relief in 13 counties