Nevada's Top Federal Prosecutor Under the Microscope: A Landmark Ruling Shakes Dual-Role Policy

A recent, groundbreaking decision by a federal appeals court in New Jersey is sending ripples across the nation, sparking critical questions about the ethics and legality of federal prosecutors simultaneously holding state or local government positions. This landmark ruling now casts a long shadow over similar past practices, particularly those involving high-profile figures like Nevada's current U.S.

Attorney, Jason Frierson, and raises profound questions about the Justice Department's long-standing policy.

The tremor originated in the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, where a panel delivered a stinging rebuke to a policy that permits assistant U.S. attorneys to serve in dual governmental capacities.

The case at its heart involved William E. Fitzpatrick, the First Assistant U.S. Attorney for New Jersey, who also served as a city councilman for Roselle Park. The court's unequivocal finding? This dual role likely violated federal law, specifically 5 U.S.C. § 2105(a), which defines a federal "employee" and bars them from holding certain other offices, and 18 U.S.C.

§ 203(a), prohibiting federal employees from acting as agents for others in matters involving the U.S. government.

While the Third Circuit's decision is not directly binding on the Ninth Circuit, which includes Nevada, its compelling reasoning could prove highly influential. This is where U.S.

Attorney Jason Frierson enters the conversation. Before his nomination as Nevada's top federal prosecutor, Frierson served a significant tenure as a federal prosecutor while also holding a seat in the Nevada Assembly. He stepped down from his legislative role only after being nominated for the U.S. Attorney position, a move that, in hindsight, aligns with the very concerns now highlighted by the New Jersey ruling.

The Justice Department's Executive Office for U.S.

Attorneys has, for years, maintained a policy allowing federal prosecutors to hold state or local elected office, provided certain conditions are met. These typically include strict recusals from cases involving the state or local entity, and assurances that no conflict of interest arises. However, critics argue that the inherent nature of such dual roles creates an unavoidable perception of conflict, if not an actual one, compromising public trust and the integrity of both offices.

Legal ethics experts are weighing in with significant concerns.

Richard Painter, a former White House ethics lawyer and professor at the University of Minnesota Law School, characterized the Justice Department's policy as "horrible." He emphasized the critical importance of federal prosecutors being perceived as impartial and solely focused on federal interests, without any entanglement in state or local political agendas.

This New Jersey ruling is more than just a regional legal development; it's a potent signal that the practice of federal prosecutors wearing two hats may be facing unprecedented scrutiny.

It compels a re-evaluation of the Justice Department's internal policies and could very well inspire similar challenges in other federal circuits. For figures like Jason Frierson, whose past public service aligns with the scenarios now under legal fire, the decision serves as a powerful reminder of the evolving landscape of public ethics and the unwavering demand for transparency and accountability in the nation's highest legal offices.