loading . . . White House fires court-appointed U.S. attorney for upstate New York hours after he was sworn in **Donald Kinsella lasted one business day as the top federal prosecutor for upstate New York — if you can even call it that. The veteran attorney was sworn in as U.S. attorney for the Northern District of New York on Wednesday in a private ceremony. By that evening, he’d been fired via email.**
The message came from Morgan DeWitt Snow, deputy director of presidential personnel. Kinsella told NBC News it said the “president directed that I be removed,” with no explanation attached.
Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche made the administration’s position clear on X that same night:
> “Judges don’t pick U.S. Attorneys, @POTUS does. See Article II of our Constitution. You are fired, Donald Kinsella.”
That’s the core of this story — and it’s a more interesting constitutional question than the media’s breathless coverage suggests.
## How the vacancy happened
The Northern District didn’t just wake up without a prosecutor. It got there through a series of court rulings that have hamstrung the administration’s ability to staff U.S. attorney posts across multiple districts.
John Sarcone III served as acting U.S. attorney for the Northern District until U.S. District Judge Lorna Schofield ruled in January that the Justice Department had taken improper steps to keep him in the role beyond the 120-day limit for Senate-unconfirmed U.S. attorneys. NBC News reports that Sarcone demoted himself to first assistant attorney while awaiting an appeal of that ruling. He remains the highest-ranking prosecutor in the district.
Into that vacuum, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York stepped in and appointed Kinsella — a former assistant U.S. attorney who served from 1989 to 1998, led the criminal division of that same office starting in 1998, and left in 2002 before spending years in private practice.
The court defended its action Thursday, citing Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the Constitution:
> “Congress may by Law vest the Appointment” of officials such as United States Attorneys “in the Courts of Law.”
The court also thanked Kinsella:
> “His willingness to return to public service so that this vacancy could be filled with a qualified, experienced former prosecutor, and for his years of distinguished work on behalf of the citizens of the Northern District of New York.”
A gracious tribute to a man who held the job for a matter of hours.
## The constitutional fault line
Both sides cite the same article of the Constitution — Article II — and arrive at opposite conclusions. The White House says presidential appointment authority is non-negotiable. The court says Congress explicitly authorized judicial appointment of U.S. attorneys to fill vacancies. Both claims have textual support, which is what makes this a genuine separation-of-powers clash rather than the authoritarian power grab the left wants it to be.
Here’s what gets lost in the outrage cycle: the federal judiciary didn’t appoint Kinsella out of some noble, apolitical concern for the rule of law. Courts moved into a space created by their own rulings. Judges knocked out the administration’s appointees, then installed their own pick. Whether that’s constitutionally sound or a remarkable act of judicial self-dealing depends on which clause you emphasize — and that question will likely end up before higher courts.
Blanche’s blunt framing — the president picks U.S. attorneys, full stop — reflects a straightforward reading of executive authority that has governed appointments for generations. The court’s counter-reading relies on a statutory carve-out. The administration clearly intends to force the issue rather than let judges quietly fill prosecutorial seats with their own selections.
## A pattern of judicial interference
This isn’t an isolated skirmish. Several judges have ruled that prosecutors appointed by Attorney General Pam Bondi were serving unlawfully, creating a rolling series of confrontations between the executive branch and the judiciary over who controls federal law enforcement.
Consider the recent track record:
* Lindsey Halligan, a former insurance attorney who served as the top prosecutor for the Eastern District of Virginia, stepped down last month after a judge ruled she was “masquerading” as U.S. attorney.
* Alina Habba, who served as acting U.S. attorney for the District of New Jersey, was disqualified by an appeals court that found her appointment violated the Federal Vacancies Reform Act.
* Sarcone was ruled to have exceeded the 120-day limit in the Northern District.
Each ruling narrows the administration’s room to maneuver. Each vacancy created becomes an opportunity for a court to insert its own appointee. The pattern should concern anyone who thinks prosecutors ought to answer to elected officials rather than lifetime-appointed judges.
### The real question nobody’s asking
The left frames every one of these episodes as a triumph of the rule of law over executive overreach. But stack the rulings up and a different picture emerges: an unelected judiciary systematically disabling the elected president’s ability to staff the offices that enforce federal law, then filling those offices itself.
That’s not a check on power. That’s a transfer of it.
If the concern is that U.S. attorneys must be properly credentialed and lawfully appointed, the solution is Senate confirmation — not judicial self-appointment. Courts don’t prosecute cases. They don’t answer to voters. They don’t set enforcement priorities. Letting them choose who does is a cure worse than the disease, no matter how impressive Kinsella’s résumé might be.
## What comes next
The Northern District now sits in a kind of legal limbo. Sarcone remains the highest-ranking prosecutor but awaits an appeal of the ruling that removed him as acting U.S. attorney. Kinsella was fired the day he started. The court has asserted its appointment authority. The White House has rejected it outright.
Whether Kinsella challenges his firing or the court attempts another appointment remains unclear. What’s certain is that this fight — over who controls federal prosecution — isn’t going away. It’s the kind of structural conflict that ends at the Supreme Court.
Until then, the Northern District of New York has become a two-sentence constitutional crisis: judges say they can fill the chair, and the president says they can’t. Someone’s going to be wrong, and the answer will reshape how federal law enforcement is staffed for a generation.
The post White House fires court-appointed U.S. attorney for upstate New York hours after he was sworn in appeared first on Washington Digest.
Click this link for the original source of this article.
Author: Christina Davie
* * *
This content is courtesy of, and owned and copyrighted by, https://washingtondigest.com and its author. This content is made available by use of the public RSS feed offered by the host site and is used for educational purposes only. If you are the author or represent the host site and would like this content removed now and in the future, please contact USSANews.com using the email address in the Contact page found in the website menu. https://ussanews.com/2026/02/14/white-house-fires-court-appointed-u-s-attorney-for-upstate-new-york-hours-after-he-was-sworn-in/
