SAN FRANCISCO — A federal appeals court heard arguments Thursday on whether the Trump administration lawfully appointed conservative firebrand Sigal Chattah as Nevada’s highest federal law enforcement officer, one day after the White House nominated her potential replacement.

The hearing before the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco also addressed whether indictments secured under Chattah’s leadership can be thrown out. The three-judge panel — composed of two Trump appointees and one appointed by former President Bill Clinton — did not issue a ruling.

The Trump administration announced Wednesday it nominated Las Vegas attorney George Kelesis as Nevada’s U.S. attorney. The nomination requires Senate approval, and the state’s Democratic senators vowed to block Chattah if she reached the Senate, calling her an extremist who is unfit for the job.

If the appellate court determines that Chattah was lawfully appointed as acting U.S. attorney, she is able to continue in her role for as long as the nomination process plays out. If the Senate rejects, withdraws or returns (meaning it takes no action on) the nomination, Chattah can remain for 210 days after that action occurs, the Justice Department said in a legal filing.

Her existing 210-day timeline as acting U.S. attorney was previously set to run out this month.

The appeals court’s ruling could establish precedent for the legality of Justice Department appointments, especially at a time when the Trump administration has been using unconventional procedural maneuvers to seat sympathetic U.S. attorneys who would be unlikely to receive necessary approval from their home state Democratic senators. The ruling could also decide whether prosecutions under her tenure can be thrown out.

The Justice Department appointed Chattah to the role on an interim basis last March, which came with a 120-day term. In July, the day before her term expired, Chattah resigned and Attorney General Pam Bondi appointed her to a new position — first assistant U.S. attorney — that Bondi said allows her to perform the duties of acting U.S. attorney for 210 days. The existing holder of that role moved to another position.

In September, a judge disqualified Chattah as acting U.S. attorney by determining the appointment to first assistant U.S. attorney was invalid, but he said indictments secured under her leadership remained valid. The ruling was paused pending appeal.

In arguments lasting about an hour, judges weighed if they had jurisdiction to rule on the dismissal of indictments under Chattah, with one judge appearing skeptical, and whether the attorney general can delegate all U.S. attorney responsibilities to the first assistant position. They also questioned whether, under the government’s position, an administration can evade congressional approval of a U.S. attorney nominee by alternating between “interim” and “acting” designations.

“There would be an easy workaround, if we interpret the statutes as you’re suggesting, to allow the attorney general to have one person in almost the entire time, even if there is no ultimate confirmation,” Judge Stanley Blumenfeld, a Trump appointee, said. 

Four criminal defendants are aiming to have their indictments invalidated because they happened after Chattah’s appointment. A ruling against the government could throw out these indictments, potentially opening the floodgates to defense attorneys trying to have their clients’ cases dismissed. 

The case is the latest legal test of the Trump administration’s efforts to install acting U.S. attorneys without approval of the U.S. Senate. Similar cases have arisen in New Jersey and Virginia, where judges have consistently ruled that the Justice Department violated the law.

Typically, permanent U.S. attorneys are nominated by the president and approved by the Senate, but the Trump administration has sought to install allies to the positions temporarily. These officials have at times indicted Trump’s political opponents, such as the prosecution of former FBI Director James Comey, which was eventually tossed out after a judge disqualified the U.S. attorney who signed off on the case.

In Nevada, Chattah — a prominent Trump supporter and former Republican national committeewoman who previously ran for state attorney general — has approved a federal investigation into UNLV over antisemitism allegations and reportedly urged the FBI to launch a voter fraud probe in Nevada in an effort to help Republicans. She also launched a Public Corruption Strike Force, which would handle everything from government misconduct to election crimes, according to an office press release. 

Legal arguments

The main legal issue at hand is whether Chattah’s appointment to the first assistant U.S. attorney position violated federal law on filling government vacancies, as other federal courts have decided.

In his September decision, U.S. District Court Judge David Campbell said it did. He interpreted federal law as only incumbent first assistant U.S. attorneys can fulfill the acting leadership duties — not people newly appointed to the role, such as Chattah.

“The Court cannot accept the government’s assertion that the Attorney General has power to designate anyone she chooses as first assistant and have that person become the acting U.S. Attorney,” he wrote. “[Federal law] was enacted to put an end to precisely such Executive actions.”

Also central to Thursday’s hearing is whether the attorney general can delegate any U.S. attorney responsibilities to the first assistant U.S. attorney. Since the September ruling against Chattah’s appointment, the office’s press releases have referred to her as the “First Assistant U.S. Attorney,” rather than “Acting U.S. Attorney,” but she is still listed as the office’s top employee.

The government argued the attorney general has this authority, while defense lawyers said this would make the laws regarding appointment rules “superfluous.” 

The other main legal issue is whether indictments since Chattah’s appointment can be invalidated.

The federal government has argued that criminal defendants cannot appeal their indictment until a final conviction has been issued, while federal public defenders have said the appeals court has jurisdiction over the question because it is also reviewing the validity of Chattah’s appointment, which is part of the same case.

Judge Eric Miller, a Trump appointee, appeared skeptical.

“It seems that they are not intertwined,” Miller said.

Updated on 2/12/26 at 2:26 p.m. to add more information about how Kelesis' nomination affects Chattah's tenure.