Appellate judges seem skeptical of Trump administration's appointments of some top prosecutors

[BumRushDaShow]

Source: AP

Updated 11:11 PM EDT, May 4, 2026


NEW YORK (AP) — A federal appeals court panel expressed skepticism on Monday over the legitimacy of President Donald Trump’s administration appointing top federal prosecutors for extended periods of time without U.S. Senate approval.

Questions about the practice arose before the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals as it considered a judge’s decision that First Assistant U.S. Attorney John Sarcone was not lawfully serving as the top prosecutor in the northern district of New York, a ruling that found Sarcone’s actions are voidable.

Circuit Judge Maria Araújo Kahn said she was concerned that a president could “basically end running a system that our Founding Fathers put in place for a checks-and-balance system.” She said it didn’t matter who the president was or which political party was in power. “That individual can bypass Senate approval of any U.S. attorney by just continuously appointing a first assistant for the purpose of making them active U.S. attorney. When would it end?” she asked.

U.S. District Judge Lorna G. Schofield in Manhattan in February disqualified Sarcone from requesting subpoenas in a probe of New York Attorney General Letitia James.

Read more: https://apnews.com/article/trump-sarcone-new-york-prosecutor-e3b2b994995a762093b561b9e180ded5

---

Circuit Judge Maria Araújo Kahn said she was concerned that a president could “basically end running a system that our Founding Fathers put in place for a checks-and-balance system.”

The GOP has completely obliterated the system of "checks and balances" by neutering Congress and having billionaires taking the SCOTUS hostage with the showering of 6 of them with a multitude of riches, even while the lower courts are trying their best to hold the whole thing together.

[travelingthrulife]

1. These judges...skepticism...is all they can muster. Some of the most powerful people in this country.

[BumRushDaShow]

2. They haven't ruled yet

but the media is sitting in the courtroom as the arguments are being made and the judges are questioning each set of lawyers. So the reporters are giving "hot takes" on the types of questions and tone of the judges when hearing the responses.

Characterizing that as "seem skeptical" suggests there is a stronger likelihood of ruling against the government.

But if they characterized it as "seem supportive of" or "seem sympathetic to" would suggest they would allow the illegal extensions of the appointees.

All of this has to do with the fringe 'Unitary Executive" theory that basically negates the need for a legislative branch, creating a dictator.