Former Warren County Prosecutor’s Suit Resumes After Appeals Panel Tosses Key Claim Against Attorney General
The former Warren County Prosecutor’s civil action has changed after an appeals court knocked down portion of his case alleging the Attorney General forced him into resigning. The high-profile prosecutorial removal and due-process safeguards issue has moved to the Superior Court of Mercer County.
James L. Pfeiffer, who resigned in April 2024, claims the Attorney General’s office unfairly demanded and misrepresented his legal rights. The appeal ruling ruled that Pfeiffer cannot rely on specific Attorney General claims because as a county prosecutor and former Superior Court judge, he knew his right to due process and a hearing. Thus, the lawsuit’s claim that he rationally relied on false removal comments was denied. Pfeiffer’s bigger complaint will proceed to trial despite the decision eliminating that allegation.
After the Attorney General took over the Warren County prosecutor’s office amid an alleged grant fund misappropriation probe, Pfeiffer resigned. According to the complaint, Pfeiffer was summoned to the Attorney General’s office in Trenton on April 5 and told to resign by day’s end. He claims he was informed things would worsen if he didn’t resign and that the Attorney General would control any hearing, making it pointless. After being told to stop while driving, he texted an aide his resignation. He claims the resignation was forced.
The appeals panel decided on reasonable reliance. Due to his experience and position, Pfeiffer should have known that the governor, not the Attorney General, can remove a county prosecutor after a public hearing. Thus, the Attorney General misleading allegation was dismissed. The court ruled that “any reasonable person holding [Pfeiffer’s] offices knew he was entitled to due process, including a hearing and legal redress if necessary,” therefore he could not claim he relied on fraudulent claims about The dismissal reinstates the trial court finding on that claim.
Pfeiffer’s attorney disagrees with the appeals court and believes the case will win. He said the verdict addressed a specific part of the litigation and that the client believes the government ousted him to avoid having to establish grant fund misuse. The Attorney General’s Office of Public Integrity and Accountability investigated Warren County. Legal records showed that the governor summoned the Attorney General on the same day as Pfeiffer’s resignation and responded affirmatively when notified by text.
The question of whether the Attorney General inappropriately induced Pfeiffer’s departure remains unresolved by this procedural finding. Questions remain about how the office’s supervisory role connects with county-prosecutor removal methods and whether the First Amendment or other prosecutor safeguards may be affected when removal or forced resignation is alleged during the trial. The decision may affect state oversight and local prosecutorial autonomy.
As the case unfolds in the Superior Court of Mercer County, observers will watch to see if the full suit proceeds to discovery, if the Attorney General’s office challenges other aspects of the claim, and how the court handles coercion, resignation, and administrative oversight. Pfeiffer’s stakes are personal, but they affect public accountability and prosecutorial independence.
