'The Senate's prerogative': Sigal Chattah's challengers urge SCOTUS to keep her disqualified and make clear the de facto leadership position created by Trump's DOJ is unlawful

Three men indicted by the disqualified prosecutor chosen by President Donald Trump to helm the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Nevada are imploring the U.S. Supreme Court to keep her out of the job.

In March 2025, Sigal Chattah was appointed to an interim role as the top federal prosecutor in the Silver State under a federal law that puts a hard 120-day limit on such a role. Two days before her term was set to expire under the Federal Vacancies Reform Act (FVRA), Chattah resigned and was designated the first assistant U.S. attorney.

In September 2025, federal public defenders challenged Chattah’s authority on behalf of Devonte Jackson, Shamar Garcia, and Giann Salazar Del Real, asking a federal court to dismiss indictments brought under her watch and/or to disqualify Chattah “and any attorneys acting under her direction” from prosecuting their cases.

Love true crime? Sign up for our newsletter, The Law&Crime Docket, to get the latest real-life crime stories delivered right to your inbox.

In turn, Chattah was disqualified by a district court — though the judge declined to dismiss the indictments in question. On appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit affirmed the lower court.

“The FVRA’s text and structure are unambiguous: The statute does not permit the executive to fill an existing vacancy by designating a new first assistant,” the appellate opinion reads.

In a 33-page petition for a writ of certiorari, Solicitor General D. John Sauer argued that Chattah’s role reflects “a commonly selected option” and “a critical tool” that has been used by the executive branch “without meaningful objection for 25 years.”

Now, in a 47-page brief in opposition, attorneys for the indicted men want the nation’s high court to let the 9th Circuit ruling stand.

“This case involves the appointment of U.S. Attorneys, who wield federal prosecutorial power within a given district,” the brief argues. “In keeping with the office’s weighty responsibilities, Congress has maintained the Senate’s prerogative to advise and consent to the appointment of U.S. Attorneys since their inception in the Judiciary Act of 1789.”

To hear the challengers tell it, the case mirrors other instances in which the Trump administration attempted end-runs around Senate confirmation.

The brief takes note of earlier court-ordered disqualifications in New Jersey and New York. And, in procedural terms, notes that there is currently no circuit split on the issue of what the FVRA allows.

“Every other court of appeals that has confronted similar maneuvers by the Executive Branch has reached the same conclusion,” the brief explains. “The Third Circuit affirmed the disqualification of a post-vacancy First Assistant in the District of New Jersey. The Second Circuit affirmed a similar disqualification in a case arising from grand jury subpoenas issued by a putative acting U.S. Attorney in the Northern District of New York.”

The challengers also chide the DOJ for arguing that Chattah’s disqualification “threatens chaos during the next presidential transition.”

“With no genuine split to rest on, the government resorts to exaggeration and fearmongering,” the opposition brief goes on.

The indicted men argue the government’s concerns have “no basis in fact or law” because the lower court decision “leaves intact the multiple methods Congress prescribed for temporarily filling vacant offices.”

The brief argues the FVRA, when used properly, allows an individual to serve for up to “two-and-a-half years” and adds that “approximately 40 other statutes” are available to temporarily fill vacancies.

“The government’s warnings of ‘chaos’ thus do not stem from an inability to fill vacant offices,” the brief continues. “Rather, the government protests that the Executive Branch cannot install its preferred acting officials for an indefinite period of time. But the inability to do that is not a crisis; it is the result of our constitutional design.”

In their filing, the challengers repeatedly cite constitutional separation of powers principles to urge the justices against taking up the DOJ’s case over Chattah’s disqualification.

“The Framers knew firsthand the dangers of tyranny and feared a President who may seek to appoint individuals ‘personally allied to him’ who ‘possess the necessary insignificance and pliancy to render them the obsequious instruments of his pleasure,'” the brief goes on. “By requiring Senate confirmation of certain presidential appointees…the Framers sought to ‘promote a judicious choice’ for ‘filling the offices of the Union.'”

The post ‘The Senate’s prerogative’: Sigal Chattah’s challengers urge SCOTUS to keep her disqualified and make clear the de facto leadership position created by Trump’s DOJ is unlawful first appeared on Law & Crime.