In a stunning blow to the Trump administration’s efforts, an appeals court has upheld the disqualification of Alina Habba, a staunch ally and former personal lawyer to President Donald Trump, from serving as Acting U.S. Attorney for the District of New Jersey.
Politico reported that this ruling, handed down by the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia, confirms a lower court’s decision that Habba’s interim appointment lacked the legal footing to continue after its expiration, despite aggressive maneuvers by the administration to keep her in the powerful prosecutorial post.
Habba’s journey to this role began earlier this year when she was named a federal prosecutor, following her tenure as Trump’s attorney in both criminal and civil matters and a brief stint as a White House adviser.
Shortly after her appointment, Habba didn’t shy away from political rhetoric, declaring in an interview with a right-leaning outlet her ambition to “turn New Jersey red”—a bold statement for someone in a role traditionally expected to remain above partisan fray.
Her actions quickly drew scrutiny, including a trespassing charge against Democratic Newark Mayor Ras Baraka, which she later dropped, and an ongoing assault case against Rep. LaMonica McIver (D-N.J.), who has pleaded not guilty.
By the time her interim term expired, federal judges in New Jersey had already replaced her with a career prosecutor, citing a lack of support from the state’s Democratic senators, Cory Booker and Andy Kim, for a permanent confirmation.
The Trump administration wasn’t ready to let go, with another official firing the replacement and reinstalling Habba as acting U.S. Attorney—a move the Justice Department defended as within presidential authority but which judges criticized as jumping the gun.
A lower court judge in August called out the appointment as relying on a “novel series of legal and personnel moves,” arguing that Habba was not lawfully serving in the role.
Defendants in federal criminal cases in New Jersey piled on, challenging her authority to prosecute after her interim term lapsed, setting the stage for a broader legal showdown.
On Monday, after hearing oral arguments on October 20 where Habba herself was present, the appellate panel—made up of judges appointed by both Republican and Democratic presidents—sided with the lower court.
The court’s 32-page opinion pulled no punches, stating, “It is apparent that the current administration has been frustrated by some of the legal and political barriers to getting its appointees in place.
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 — yet the citizens of New Jersey and the loyal employees in the U.S. Attorney's Office deserve some clarity and stability."
Let’s unpack that: while the court acknowledges the administration’s frustration with a system often bogged down by partisan gridlock, it prioritizes the rule of law over political loyalty—hardly a win for those hoping to see a more assertive conservative agenda in federal offices.
Habba wasn’t alone in facing such challenges; she claimed to be advocating for other candidates denied Senate hearings, as she noted after the October arguments, saying she was fighting “on behalf of other candidates to be federal prosecutors who have been denied a chance for a Senate hearing."
This isn’t an isolated incident—similar disqualifications of Trump-appointed interim U.S. attorneys have occurred in Nevada and Virginia, with a federal judge recently dismissing cases in Virginia due to another unlawful appointment, signaling a rough road ahead for the administration’s prosecutorial picks.
While the Justice Department and Habba’s team were reached for comment on Monday, the message is clear: federal law and time limits on appointments aren’t mere suggestions, even for a presidency eager to shake up the system.
The court’s ruling may frustrate those who see the Senate confirmation process as a swamp of obstruction, but it’s a reminder that checks and balances still hold weight—perhaps a bitter pill for conservatives tired of progressive resistance, yet a necessary guardrail to ensure stability over partisan zeal.
