Sigal Chattah Nevada US attorney arrangements have been struck down by a federal appeals court, which ruled Monday that her continued command of the state’s federal prosecution office broke the law. The decision is the latest in a string of courtroom setbacks for an administration that has repeatedly tried to seat handpicked prosecutors without going through the Senate.

A three-judge panel of the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reached the conclusion unanimously, affirming an earlier district court decision that had reached the same finding while permitting Chattah to remain in place during the appeal.

The practical result is straightforward: Chattah — a well-known figure in Nevada conservative circles who once served as the state’s Republican National Committeewoman — can no longer supervise federal prosecutions there.

The Legal Question at the Center

The panel framed the issue in unusually plain terms. The question, judges wrote, was whether the attorney general may create an acting U.S. attorney by naming someone first assistant to an office that already sits vacant, thereby sidestepping the ordinary requirement of Senate confirmation. Their answer was that she cannot.

The reasoning turned on federal vacancy law. Chattah’s designation failed, the court held, because she had never occupied the first assistant role beneath a lawfully appointed U.S. attorney. Without that predecessor in place, the elevation had no valid foundation.

How Chattah Stayed in the Job

The timeline explains why the case arose at all. President Trump named Chattah interim U.S. attorney for Nevada roughly 18 months ago, an appointment that carries a fixed 180-day limit.

One day before that clock ran out, she was appointed first assistant U.S. attorney. Attorney General Pam Bondi maintained that the new title permitted her to serve as acting U.S. attorney for another 210 days.

That extended window was scheduled to close in February. Chattah stayed on anyway, with officials citing the pending Senate consideration of a permanent nominee as justification for the continued service.

Who Brought the Challenge

The Nevada federal public defender’s office filed suit in September, representing several individuals indicted while Chattah led the office. Its argument was that the administration had strung together a sequence of unlawful personnel maneuvers for the sole purpose of keeping her in charge of federal law enforcement in the state.

The appeals court ultimately reached the same conclusion.

On the question of what happens to those prosecutions, however, the outcome was narrower. The district court had barred Chattah from overseeing the cases but stopped short of throwing them out. The Ninth Circuit agreed she cannot supervise them and said it lacked jurisdiction to decide whether the underlying indictments could be voided entirely.

That leaves defendants in a partially resolved position — the supervision problem is fixed, the validity question is not.

A Contentious Tenure

Chattah’s time running the office generated significant controversy beyond the appointment dispute.

Reporting has indicated she sought to open an investigation into a political opponent and to steer favorable outcomes toward allies. She also reportedly pressed the FBI to examine allegations that noncitizens cast ballots in the 2020 election.

At the same time, the office continued conventional work. Prosecutors there obtained indictments in a range of matters, including:

• A coordinated fraud operation resulting in multiple arrests
• An embezzlement case involving nearly $8 million in broadband funding
• Weapons charges against a convicted felon in possession of a stolen firearm

Chattah did not respond immediately when contacted for comment Monday.

The Permanent Nominee

The White House put forward Las Vegas attorney George Kelesis in February to fill the position on a permanent basis. Nevada’s two senators carry substantial influence over whether that nomination advances.

Both have met with Kelesis. Sen. Jacky Rosen’s office said she is still evaluating his nomination. Kelesis has a bipartisan donation history, having contributed to candidates from both major parties — a detail that may ease his path in a chamber where home-state senators can quietly stall nominees they dislike.

A Pattern Across the Country

Nevada is not an isolated case. Courts in New Jersey, Virginia and California have delivered comparable rulings, each rejecting some version of the same maneuver used to install a prosecutor without Senate sign-off.

The accumulating decisions point to a consistent judicial reading: the Federal Vacancies Reform Act and related statutes were written to prevent exactly this kind of workaround, and stacking temporary designations does not convert an unconfirmed appointee into a legitimate one.

What Happens Next

The administration retains the option of appealing to the Supreme Court. It has not taken that step after losing similar disputes elsewhere, which may suggest limited appetite for putting the underlying legal theory before the justices.

For now, Nevada’s U.S. attorney’s office needs new leadership, and the fastest legitimate route runs through the Senate — the very process the challenged appointments were designed to avoid.