John Sarcone III appointed interim US attorney for New York’s northern district. This follows a hotly contested reappointment that federal judges ultimately rejected. This decision seems curious, particularly given increasing concerns about his lack of credibility and qualifications for the position. The judicial panel’s decision not to solidify Sarcone’s appointment has opened the way for intense examination of his previous actions and misleading claims.
Sarcone has not been without his share of controversies. In perhaps the most outlandish episode, he alleged that an undocumented immigrant stabbed at him outside of a hotel room in Albany. However, because of surveillance footage, his narrative fell apart when officials released footage showing the two men never got closer than 20 feet. Sarcone portrayed the assailant as “a maniac” talking “in a foreign language,” but the facts proved otherwise.
Apart from the knife incident, Sarcone provided shifting explanations for the slow pace of apartment rehab. Keith actually said that tariffs on Chinese windows were to blame. He acknowledged that he has been living out of hotels since being appointed in March. He even used a made-up address on court pleadings. So when reporters began to question the validity of the fictitious address, Sarcone waved away the alarm by pointing to past threats he has received.
To support Sarcone’s new title, the U.S. Department of Justice has relied on 28 U.S. Code Section 515. Of course, this is a concerning decision because as a matter of law, U.S. attorneys must live in their districts. Law professor Carl Tobias asked if this made sense as a justification. As a threshold matter, it is not at all evident that Congress intended this code section to permit the latter two enumerated named appointments.
Sarcone’s reaction to those dishonesty allegations was deeply defensive. He then followed, “Well, have you ever been chased with a knife and threatened with your life? He then rebutted, “You’re calling me a liar? Come on!” This is borne of Peduto’s frustration with the never-ending inquisition into his workplace behavior.
The judicial panel refused to ratify Sarcone’s appointment. This deeply troubling decision speaks to the alarming lack of objective standards that have guided the selection of U.S. attorneys. There are a lot of eyes on the implementation as it progresses. They are especially intrigued by Sarcone’s exceptional situation, and the legal interpretations that have allowed him to continue wielding power, in the face of obvious threats to his integrity.