Donald T. Kinsella lasted less than a day as the U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of New York. Sworn in on Wednesday morning by a board of federal judges, he was out by Wednesday evening — removed by the White House without explanation.
Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche announced the move on X with characteristic directness:
"Judges don't pick U.S. Attorneys, @POTUS does. See Article II of our Constitution. You are fired, Donald Kinsella"
Fox News reported that Morgan DeWitt Snow, the Deputy Director of Presidential Personnel, delivered the formal notification to Kinsella. The court that appointed him pushed back the next day. The White House has not publicly commented further.
The Northern District of New York has been without a Senate-confirmed U.S. Attorney for some time, and the vacancy created a cascading series of legal disputes that set the stage for this week's confrontation.
In January, U.S. District Judge Lorna Schofield ruled that the Department of Justice had taken improper action to keep John Sarcone III in the acting U.S. Attorney role past the 120-day statutory limit for attorneys the Senate hasn't confirmed. The ruling, reported by NBC News, declared that Sarcone was serving illegally. He subsequently demoted himself to first assistant attorney while awaiting an appeal.
That left a vacancy — and the federal court moved to fill it. The judges turned to 28 U.S.C. § 546(d), which empowers a district court to appoint a U.S. Attorney "to serve until the vacancy is filled."
They selected Kinsella, whom the court described as "a qualified, experienced former prosecutor" with "years of distinguished work on behalf of the citizens of the Northern District of New York."
He didn't make it to sundown.
What makes this dispute genuinely interesting — and not just another Beltway turf war — is that both sides are pointing to the same section of the Constitution and arriving at opposite conclusions.
Blanche cited Article II for the proposition that the President picks U.S. Attorneys. The court cited Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 right back, noting that the Constitution "expressly provides" for Congress to vest the appointment of officials like U.S. Attorneys "in the Courts of Law." The court's Thursday statement laid this out in detail:
"The Court exercised its authority under 28 U.S.C. § 546(d), which empowers the district court to 'appoint a United States Attorney to serve until the vacancy is filled.' The United States Constitution expressly provides for this grant of authority in Article II, Section 2, Clause 2, which states in part: 'the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment' of officials such as United States Attorneys 'in the Courts of Law.' By the end of the day, Deputy Director of Presidential Personnel, Morgan DeWitt Snow notified Mr. Kinsella that he was removed as the judicially-appointed United States Attorney, without explanation."
So both sides invoke Article II. Both claim the text supports their position. The question is whether the executive branch can unilaterally remove someone the judiciary appointed under a statute Congress wrote for exactly this scenario.
There's a principle worth watching here that transcends the particulars of a single U.S. Attorney vacancy in upstate New York.
The 120-day limit exists for a reason — it's supposed to prevent the executive branch from parking unconfirmed appointees in powerful roles indefinitely, avoiding the Senate confirmation process the Founders designed. Judge Schofield's January ruling enforced that limit. The court's appointment of Kinsella was the statutory mechanism kicking in after the executive branch failed to fill the seat through proper channels.
The administration's position — that the President's appointment power supersedes a judicial appointment made under a congressional statute — raises a structural question that federal courts may ultimately have to resolve. Whether Kinsella's removal triggers a legal challenge remains to be seen. As of Friday, the fact sheet records no indication of one.
What's clear is the administration's posture: executive appointment authority is not something it intends to share, even temporarily, even when the vacancy exists because the Senate confirmation process stalled.
Kinsella himself has said nothing publicly. The White House hasn't responded to Fox News Digital's inquiry. The only parties on record are Blanche — via a social media post — and the court, via a carefully worded statement that reads less like a press release and more like the opening brief in a separation-of-powers case.
The court's closing line was pointed:
"The Court thanks Donald T. Kinsella for 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."
That's not a thank-you note. That's a marker laid down — a federal court telling the executive branch, on the record, that the man it removed was qualified and that his appointment was lawful.
The Northern District of New York still doesn't have a U.S. Attorney. The vacancy that started this fight remains. And the constitutional question at the center of it — who fills the gap when the President doesn't — now sits in the open, waiting for someone to litigate it.
