A U.S. federal appeals court has ruled that Alina Habba, a former personal attorney to Donald Trump, was unlawfully appointed as Acting U.S. Attorney for New Jersey, effectively disqualifying her from overseeing federal prosecutions in the state.
The unanimous decision by a three-judge panel of the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia on Monday upheld an earlier ruling that found the Trump administration violated federal appointment laws in naming Habba to the top prosecutorial post.
The ruling represents a significant legal setback for the Trump administration, which has faced mounting challenges over its attempts to install political allies into key Justice Department positions.
“It is apparent that the current administration has been frustrated by some of the legal and political barriers to getting its appointees in place,” Judge D. Michael Fisher wrote in the opinion. “Its efforts to elevate its preferred candidate for U.S. Attorney for the District of New Jersey, Alina Habba, to the role of Acting U.S. Attorney demonstrate the difficulties it has faced.”
The decision is expected to affect numerous active federal criminal cases in New Jersey, as the Justice Department will now have to appoint a new, legally qualified prosecutor to oversee them. Officials have not confirmed whether they will appeal the ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court.
A Justice Department spokesperson declined to comment on the court’s decision.
Defense Lawyers Praise Ruling
Attorneys Abbe Lowell, Gerry Krovatin, and Norm Eisen, representing criminal defendant Cesar Pina, who challenged Habba’s authority, hailed the court’s ruling as a victory for constitutional oversight.
“The decision shows that President Trump cannot usurp longstanding statutory and constitutional processes to insert whomever he wants in these positions,” the lawyers said in a joint statement.
Pina has pleaded not guilty to multiple charges including wire fraud, money laundering, and bribery.
Wider Pattern of Appointment Disputes
This marks the first federal appellate ruling addressing the Trump administration’s temporary U.S. attorney appointments, though similar challenges have surfaced across the country.
Last week, a federal judge dismissed cases brought by another Trump-aligned prosecutor, Lindsey Halligan, against former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James, ruling that Halligan’s appointment as interim U.S. attorney for Virginia was also unlawful.
Federal judges in California and Nevada have issued similar findings regarding interim prosecutors, and the Justice Department is appealing the Nevada case.
Typically, U.S. attorneys are nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate. However, temporary appointments can be made under specific legal provisions—though in Habba’s case, judges in New Jersey declined to extend her interim term and instead appointed her deputy, Desiree Grace, a career prosecutor.
The Justice Department responded by firing Grace and attempting to reinstall Habba, prompting accusations of political interference. Defense lawyers argued that this maneuver circumvented the Senate confirmation process and allowed Habba to serve indefinitely without oversight.
The Justice Department countered that Attorney General Pam Bondi had lawfully empowered Habba under a separate designation as a “special attorney,” but the court rejected that argument.
A Controversial Tenure
Habba, who lacked prior prosecutorial experience, gained prominence as one of Trump’s lawyers during his post-presidency legal battles, including the E. Jean Carroll defamation case, in which a jury found Trump liable.
Her brief tenure as acting U.S. attorney drew controversy after she claimed in an interview that her office could be used to “help Republicans in New Jersey.” She also faced criticism for pursuing charges against Democratic Representative LaMonica McIver following a confrontation with federal agents outside a detention center.
The appeals court’s ruling formally ends Habba’s authority in the position and further underscores judicial resistance to politically driven appointments within the U.S. justice system.
