Federal judge rules Trump’s appointment of Alina Habba as top New Jersey prosecutor is unlawful

In a rebuke of the Trump administration’s handling of federal appointments, a U.S. judge has ruled that Alina Habba, one of Donald Trump’s closest legal allies, has been unlawfully serving as the top federal prosecutor in New Jersey since early July — raising fresh concerns about presidential overreach.

The decision by Judge Matthew W. Brann, issued Thursday, found that the White House and Justice Department engaged in a series of improvised maneuvers to keep Habba in power even after her legally authorized term expired. At stake was not only who leads one of the nation’s busiest U.S. attorneys’ offices, but also whether the executive branch can bend long-standing vacancy rules to maintain partisan control over federal law enforcement.

“The Constitution’s structural provisions … are designed first and foremost not to look after the interests of the respective branches, but to protect individual liberty,” Brann wrote in the 77-page order. He concluded bluntly: “Ms. Habba is not statutorily eligible to perform the functions and duties of the office of the United States Attorney and has therefore unlawfully held the role since July 24, 2025.”

A clash of politics and law

The ruling is the latest flashpoint in the Trump administration’s broader confrontation with the federal judiciary, which has repeatedly bristled at the president’s attempts to bypass Senate confirmation requirements.

Trump announced Habba’s elevation on his Truth Social account in March, only weeks after she had been publicly representing him in civil and criminal matters. By late June, he formally nominated her as U.S. attorney — but the Senate never acted. As her interim term neared expiration, federal judges in New Jersey exercised their statutory authority to install a replacement, First Assistant U.S. Attorney Desiree Grace.

That decision triggered a political storm. Attorney General Pamela Bondi and Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche accused “politically minded judges” of trying to push out Habba early. The administration responded with a flurry of last-minute moves: withdrawing her nomination, arranging her resignation as interim U.S. attorney, firing Grace, reappointing Habba as a “special attorney” to Bondi, slotting her as first assistant, and then claiming she automatically became acting U.S. attorney under the Federal Vacancies Reform Act.

Habba herself embraced the reshuffling, posting online: “I am now the Acting United States Attorney for the District of New Jersey.”

But Brann’s opinion dismantled that rationale step by step, finding that the administration’s reading of vacancy law was untenable. “Her actions since July 1, 2025, may be declared void,” he wrote, including her approval of the indictment of real estate investor Cesar Humberto Pina.

A timeline of disputed authority

The court reconstructed the chronology with meticulous detail.

• March 3, 2025: Attorney General Bondi appointed John Giordano as interim U.S. attorney.
• March 28: Habba was sworn in to replace him, starting a 120-day statutory clock.
• July 1: By Brann’s interpretation, her interim authority expired — weeks earlier than the administration claimed.
• July 7: Habba signed Pina’s six-count indictment, despite lacking lawful authority.
• July 22: District judges invoked their statutory power to install Grace as U.S. attorney. The administration immediately terminated her.
• July 24: The White House orchestrated the five-step maneuver to reinstall Habba, culminating in her claim to be acting U.S. attorney.
• July 27–28: Defendants Julien Giraud Jr. and Julien Giraud III, already facing drug and firearm charges, moved to disqualify her. Their case was stayed pending resolution of the dispute.

The constitutional stakes

At the heart of the dispute lies the Appointments Clause of the Constitution, which requires Senate confirmation for U.S. attorneys and other senior federal officers. Congress has allowed temporary appointments under limited conditions, but Brann emphasized that those exceptions are tightly circumscribed to prevent executive overreach.

Quoting Alexander Hamilton and Justice Antonin Scalia, the judge warned against the dangers of allowing presidents to stock key offices with loyalists unvetted by the Senate. He noted that Congress has consistently sought to prevent “end-runs” around its advice-and-consent power.

The administration’s argument, Brann wrote, effectively rewrote statutory limits by treating the attorney general’s authority as renewable at will and by stretching the Federal Vacancies Reform Act beyond recognition. The result, he concluded, was an “unlawful arrogation of power” that could not stand.

Beyond New Jersey, the ruling sends a signal to Washington about the limits of executive improvisation. Presidents of both parties have relied on acting officials and interim appointments to navigate Senate gridlock, but Trump’s maneuvers around Habba’s appointment were unusually aggressive and openly political.

“This sweeping Executive Power … may at first be warmly received by champions of a strong Presidential power,” Brann noted, quoting a 2023 Supreme Court dissent. “But that is not what the Constitution envisions.”

Brann stayed the decision, pending an appeal from the Trump administration, setting up yet another clash in higher courts over Trump’s expansive view of presidential authority.

The bigger picture

The Habba saga illustrates how even technical disputes over statutory deadlines can become battlegrounds for larger questions about democracy and the rule of law.

For Trump, installing a fiercely loyal ally in charge of federal prosecutions in his home state was a symbolic and strategic priority. For the courts, allowing that maneuver to stand would risk unraveling a centuries-old balance of power between the branches of government.

By striking down the appointment, Brann positioned the judiciary once again as a counterweight to executive excess. Whether higher courts uphold his ruling will determine not only Habba’s future, but also the guardrails on presidential authority at a moment when those limits are under sustained assault.

Read the full 77-page ruling online.