Appeals Court Disqualifies Alina Habba as Acting U.S. Attorney in New Jersey
Court Ruling on Appointment Validity
A federal appeals court upheld a lower court’s decision on December 1, 2025, disqualifying Alina Habba from her position as acting U.S. attorney in New Jersey. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit unanimously ruled against the Trump administration, which had attempted to use an unconventional method to appoint lawyers without Senate approval to temporary U.S. attorney roles nationwide.
The case arose after three defendants facing criminal charges in New Jersey challenged Habba’s appointment, arguing it violated the Federal Vacancies Reform Act (FVRA). U.S. District Judge Matthew Brann ruled in August that Habba had been serving without lawful authority since her appointment in July and mandated her disqualification from ongoing cases.
Background of Habba’s Appointment
Initially appointed for a 120-day term, Habba’s interim position required either extension by the U.S. District Court or confirmation by the Senate. However, her nomination was expected to face significant opposition, notably from New Jersey’s Democratic senators, Cory Booker and Andy Kim.
As the deadline approached, New Jersey judges opted not to extend Habba’s term and instead appointed her deputy, Desiree Leigh Grace, as acting U.S. attorney. This decision was quickly countered by Attorney General Pam Bondi, who dismissed Grace from her position.
Administration Maneuvers
In a bid to retain Habba, the Trump administration executed a multi-step strategy. It began with President Trump withdrawing Habba’s nomination, followed by her resignation from the role of interim U.S. attorney. Subsequently, Bondi appointed Habba as “special attorney” and first assistant U.S. attorney. Because the U.S. attorney position in New Jersey was technically vacant, Habba was then elevated to acting U.S. attorney under the FVRA.
The judges on the 3rd Circuit expressed significant concern regarding the administration’s tactics, noting that it raised constitutional issues by potentially allowing indefinite servstart in such roles without proper Senate confirmation. “Under the Government’s delegation theory, Habba may avoid the gauntlet of presidential appointment and Senate confirmation and serve as the de facto U.S. Attorney indefinitely,” wrote Judge Michael Fisher, highlighting the dangers of undermining established procedures.
Implications of the Ruling
The ruling marks a pivotal moment in the ongoing legal and political battles surrounding federal appointments and the administration’s authority. The Trump administration’s attempts to appoint temporary U.S. attorneys in other locations, including Nevada and Los Angeles, have similarly faced judicial challenges.
Following this ruling, the court reinforced the importance of adhering to established appointment processes, emphasizing the need for accountability and oversight in federal appointments. The outcome also raises questions about the future of similar appointments and whether such mechanisms will continue to be tested in the legal arena.
This decision serves as a reminder of the checks on executive power and the necessity for adherence to constitutional processes in the appointment of federal officials.