Ruling Finds Habba Appointment Unlawful

A federal judge found that Habba has unlawfully held the role of the district's top prosecutor for more than the allowed interim period.

Judge Rules Habba's U S Attorney Appointment Unlawful

A federal judge has ruled that acting U S Attorney Alina Habba’s appointment in New Jersey was unlawful and that she should not continue to perform the duties of the office. In a 77-page decision, Judge Matthew Brann said the executive branch used a series of steps to keep Habba in the job, even as the Senate did not act on a permanent nomination.

The ruling details how Habba was named interim on March 24 and sworn in three days later, while interim authority typically expires after 120 days. Although President Trump nominated her for the permanent post on June 30, the Senate did not act on the nomination. On July 22, the district court appointed Habba’s deputy as U S Attorney, a move Brann described as an attempt to sidestep the Senate. He also found that the subsequent actions to keep Habba in the role were improper and that her interim appointment ended earlier than the government claimed. The decision is currently on hold pending appeal, preventing immediate changes while the case moves through higher courts.

The Justice Department and Habba’s office did not promptly respond to requests for comment. The ruling arrived on the same day a separate appeals court dismissed the New York attorney general’s $500 million fraud judgment against Donald Trump, a development Habba linked to as politically motivated in her statements.

This ruling highlights how procedural maneuvers in high-stakes cases can blur the lines between executive power and legislative oversight. It underscores a broader tension over how long a person can serve in a top federal post without Senate consent and what steps are legally permissible to avoid a vacancy.

If upheld, the ruling could prompt changes in how interim U S attorneys are appointed and reviewed, potentially slowing rapid moves that skirt confirmation. It may also intensify scrutiny of the Justice Department’s appointment practices in other districts, feeding into a wider debate about political influence in prosecutorial offices.

Highlights

Power and procedure collide when speed is prized over process