So much for Chief Justice Roberts’s claim that there are no “Obama judges or Trump judges, Bush judges or Clinton judges.” With every passing day it gets more difficult to characterize the federal judiciary as nonpolitical. Feature the démarche by the federal judges of the Northern District of New York, who on Monday rejected President Trump’s pick for, in John Sarcone, United States attorney at Albany. 

Mr. Trump has reportedly parried the judges’ move by appointing Mr. Sarcone as the first assistant United States attorney for the district, suggesting he is not taking the jurists’ decision as final. It’s not our intention here to endorse, per se, Mr. Sarcone for either job. We understand that his political foes have questioned his judgment amid tensions with local police. Yet it is our intention to mark the political dimension of the judges blocking a prosecutor.

Mr. Sarcone was named in March to the position on an interim basis. That would enable him to hold the post for 120 days unless he were to be nominated by the president. Plus Senate ratification would be needed. Senator Schumer has reportedly been slow to move on other New York nominees. If an interim appointment expires, by federal law, the district’s judges have power to “appoint a United States attorney to serve until the vacancy is filled.” 

In this case, though, the judges decided to send Mr. Sarcone packing. “The Board of Judges of the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York declines to exercise the authority,” granted by law, “to appoint a United States attorney for the Northern District of New York,” the court said in an unsigned statement, offering no further explanation. The clerk’s office tells us that the Board of Judges includes all the district’s judges. 

Could the partisan complexion of that group of judges shed light on Mr. Sarcone’s ouster? Of the 10 district judges serving, seven — including the chief judge, Brenda Sannes — were nominated by Democratic presidents. Three were named by Republicans. We hesitate to speculate that the judges acted on the basis of political motivations. Yet the Times reports that the defenestration of Mr. Sarcone comes at a fraught time for the judiciary.

“The move came as federal judges, including some appointed by Republicans, have strongly resisted the policies of Mr. Trump’s Justice Department,” the Times reports, “with a sharp focus on how federal prosecutors have handled immigration cases.” These columns have noted, too, that the frequently obstructive posture of federal judges toward Mr. Trump’s agenda has suggested a politicization of the courts.

Upon being named to the post, Mr. Sarcone said he was “deeply humbled and honored,” especially in light of his “blue-collar background,” as he put it, “growing up in Croton-on-Hudson” and “having worked full-time while going at night” to Pace University’s law school. Yet, per the Times, Mr. Sarcone made some waves in the position when he, on June 17, reported that “a maniac with a knife who was speaking in a foreign language” had attacked him. 

The accused assailant, described by the Times as an illegal immigrant from El Salvador, pleaded guilty to second-degree menacing, though Mr. Sarcone had pushed for more severe charges. Mr. Sarcone, too, pointed to the episode to bolster criticism of “both the local police and what he saw as lax immigration policies,” the Times reported. He went on to call the leadership of the Albany Police Department “disgraceful.”

It’s not clear yet how far Mr. Trump intends to press the point on Mr. Sarcone’s nomination. WNYT reports that other candidates are being considered. Yet Mr. Sarcone in March had thanked Mr. Trump for “having faith and confidence in me” to “restore public confidence and trust in our government and the Department of Justice.” Unless Mr. Trump sticks by Mr. Sarcone, it’ll look like the politics of upstate New York’s federal bench is more decisive.