Highlights:
-
Appeals court rules Alina Habba’s appointment violated federal vacancy laws.
-
Judges find the administration repeatedly bypassed proper confirmation procedures.
-
Decision creates uncertainty for active federal cases in New Jersey.
-
Similar appointment disputes are underway in Virginia.
- Advertisement - -
Ruling marks the second legal setback in the same week for Trump and Alina Habba.
A three-judge panel of the Third Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia ruled that Alina Habba lacked legal authority to act as the U.S. attorney for the District of New Jersey after July 1. The panel upheld a prior district court finding that the administration’s actions violated federal appointment laws.
Habba, who previously served as a civil attorney for Donald Trump and had no background in criminal prosecution, was appointed in March to a temporary 120-day term as New Jersey’s top federal prosecutor. That interim appointment expired in July.
Following the expiration, the White House nominated Alina Habba for the permanent position. However, the nomination stalled after New Jersey’s Democratic senators, Cory Booker and Andy Kim, opposed the confirmation. With the Senate approval blocked, the position remained legally unresolved.
Under federal law, when a U.S. attorney’s temporary appointment expires, district court judges are authorized to select an acting replacement. That process was followed in New Jersey, where judges appointed veteran federal prosecutor Desiree Leigh Grace as acting U.S. attorney.
Alina Habba Reinstalled Through Unconventional Maneuvers
After the district court appointed Grace, Attorney General Pam Bondi implemented a series of administrative steps aimed at returning Alina Habba to leadership of the office.
Bondi removed Grace from the acting position. She then named Habba as the office’s first assistant and argued that this role automatically elevated her to acting U.S. attorney. In addition, Habba was granted the separate designation of “special attorney” with authority across New Jersey.
These administrative actions became the basis of the legal challenge reviewed by the appeals court.
The three-judge panel rejected each of these steps, ruling they violated the Federal Vacancies Reform Act and other governing statutes. The court determined that the first-assistant succession rule applies only at the moment a vacancy occurs and cannot be applied retroactively to justify Habba’s return to office.
The judges also ruled that the “special attorney” title could not legally serve as a substitute for Senate confirmation or judicial appointment.
The court stated that residents of New Jersey and the career prosecutors within the U.S. attorney’s office were entitled to stability and compliance with clear legal rules.
Alina Habba Ruling Disrupts Federal Cases in New Jersey
The ruling leaves the U.S. attorney’s office in New Jersey in continued uncertainty. Because Alina Habba’s authority had been under legal challenge for months, some criminal proceedings slowed, and certain grand jury activities were paused during the dispute.
It remains unclear who will now lead the office in the short term or how cases initiated while Habba was functioning as attorney will be handled going forward. Legal experts expect prosecutors to review filings and procedural steps taken during the disputed period.
The uncertainty also affects defense attorneys and defendants whose cases may have been influenced by the leadership question at the top of the federal prosecutor’s office.
Alina Habba Appointment Described as a “Shell Game” by Challengers
The legal challenge against Habba’s appointment was brought by attorneys Abbe Lowell, Gerald Krovatin, and Norm Eisen. They argued that the Trump administration attempted to bypass federal safeguards designed to prevent unilateral executive appointments.
They described the administration’s efforts to maintain Habba’s position as a “shell game” that relied on changing job titles and strained legal interpretations to keep her in control of the office.
The appeals court ruling aligned with that assessment, rejecting the shifting legal rationale used to justify her continued authority.
Alina Habba Faces Second Legal Blow in One Week
The Third Circuit ruling marks the second major legal setback involving Alina Habba and Donald Trump within the same week. Days earlier, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld nearly $1 million in sanctions imposed on both of them.
Those sanctions were connected to lawsuits that a lower court determined were frivolous and politically motivated. The appeals court affirmed that decision, adding to the series of judicial rebukes.
Alina Habba Case May Head to the Supreme Court
Because the Third Circuit ruling has significant implications for federal prosecutions and for how interim U.S. attorneys may be appointed in the future, the case is widely expected to advance to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Legal analysts say the dispute raises fundamental questions about executive authority, Senate confirmation requirements, and the limits of administrative workarounds under the Federal Vacancies Reform Act.
At the same time, similar disputes over U.S. attorney appointments are unfolding in Virginia, suggesting the broader issue of federal prosecutor appointments could soon face nationwide legal clarification.
