In a significant legal defeat for the Trump administration, an appeals court upheld a lower court ruling on Monday that disqualified Alina Habba from serving as the acting U.S. attorney for the District of New Jersey. The 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals issued a detailed 32-page ruling, concluding that Habba's appointment was in violation of the Federal Vacancies Reform Act (FVRA).
Judge Michael Fisher, who authored the ruling for the three-judge panel, noted that the current administration has faced challenges in securing its appointees due to legal and political barriers. The court highlighted that the methods employed to install Habba did not comply with the law, thereby invalidating her position. The ruling stemmed from motions filed by three criminal defendants who argued that President Donald Trump’s appointment of Habba, who was overseeing their cases, was unlawful. They contended that her disqualification was necessary and that the cases against them should be dismissed.
Initially, a lower court judge ruled against dismissing the defendants' cases but concurred that Habba should be disqualified. The appeals court affirmed this decision, reinforcing the legal perspective that Habba was unlawfully serving as the chief federal law enforcement officer in New Jersey. In a joint statement, the attorneys challenging her appointment—Abbe Lowell, Gerry Krovatin, and Norm Eisen—celebrated the ruling as a landmark decision, emphasizing that it reaffirms the importance of adhering to statutory and constitutional processes when appointing federal officials.
The White House declined to comment on the judgment and instead referred inquiries to the Justice Department, which also chose not to provide any statements regarding the matter. The U.S. attorney's office in New Jersey has yet to respond to requests for comments following the appeals court's decision.
Alina Habba, a former personal lawyer to President Trump, faced scrutiny over her appointment. A federal judge had previously ruled in August that her appointment was “unlawful,” although the order was temporarily on hold pending the outcome of the appeals process. U.S. District Judge Matthew W. Brann specifically criticized Trump for naming Habba as interim U.S. attorney in March, a position limited to 120 days. Although Trump nominated her for the permanent role in June, the Senate did not advance her nomination.
Following Trump's nomination, judges for the U.S. District Court of New Jersey appointed Habba’s deputy to the position of U.S. attorney. In response to this development, Attorney General Pam Bondi dismissed the deputy and appointed Habba as “Special Attorney to the Attorney General,” granting her the powers of a U.S. attorney, and subsequently reinstated her as acting U.S. attorney. However, the appeals court determined that Bondi could not delegate the full authority of the office to Habba through the special attorney appointment. The court expressed concern that such delegation could allow the Department of Justice to bypass the FVRA’s exclusivity provision, which should raise significant legal concerns.
The timing of the appeals court's ruling is notable, as it follows a recent decision by a federal judge who dismissed criminal indictments against former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James. U.S. District Judge Cameron Currie found that acting U.S. Attorney Lindsey Halligan, who was prosecuting those cases, was also unlawfully appointed. Judge Currie emphasized that Halligan, another former Trump attorney lacking prosecutorial experience, had no legal authority to present the indictment. The Trump administration has indicated plans to appeal this ruling as well.
This ruling not only highlights the ongoing legal challenges faced by the Trump administration but also underscores the importance of following established legal frameworks when appointing federal officials. As the situation continues to unfold, the implications of these decisions will likely resonate throughout the legal and political landscape.