Federal Judge Rules Alina Habba Unlawfully Serving as Acting U.S. Attorney of New Jersey

A federal judge has thrown a wrench into the Trump administration’s efforts to maintain leadership in New Jersey’s top federal prosecutor’s office, ruling that attorney Alina Habba has been unlawfully serving as acting U.S. Attorney of New Jersey.

Judge Matthew Brann, an Obama appointee, issued his decision after two criminal defendants challenged Habba’s appointment in court, calling it unconstitutional. His ruling reads less like a neutral interpretation and more like a firm rebuke of the administration’s attempt to use statutory authority to keep Habba in place.

“Faced with the question of whether Ms. Habba is lawfully performing the functions and duties of the office of the United States Attorney for the District of New Jersey, I conclude that she is not,” Brann wrote. “Because she is not currently qualified to exercise the functions and duties of the office in an acting capacity, she must be disqualified from participating in any ongoing cases.”

The dispute centers on how far executive authority can stretch in filling positions when the Senate confirmation process stalls or courts intervene. Brann accused President Trump and Attorney General Pam Bondi of relying on “loopholes” to reinstall Habba after her initial term expired. “A statutory interpretation that opens a gaping loophole in this tightly crafted scheme meant to provide only limited flexibility and prevent ‘manipulation’ flies in the face of the goal that Congress was trying to accomplish,” Brann wrote. “Although clearer text could require such a result, the Government’s arguments reaching such a conclusion through vague implication must fail.”

At the heart of the case is the balance between elected leadership ensuring accountability in federal law enforcement and unelected judges interpreting statutes in ways that limit that leadership. One of the defendants, Julien Giraud, claimed the administration’s moves violated his constitutional rights because of what he described as unconventional actions to keep Habba in her role. Brann agreed, ruling Habba could not prosecute Giraud or another defendant who filed a challenge.

Last month, a panel of New Jersey judges took the unusual step of declining to extend Habba’s term, opting instead to appoint career attorney Desiree Grace. The Trump administration quickly removed Grace, withdrew Habba’s stalled nomination for permanent U.S. Attorney, and then reinstated her in an acting capacity — a move the administration argued provided another 210 days of legal authority under federal law.

For conservatives, the question goes beyond one appointment. It touches the broader issue of whether courts can override executive decisions in ways that weaken the President’s Article II powers. Attorney General Bondi made that point clear in a post on X, writing that Habba “has been doing a great job” making the state safer, yet “politically minded judges refused” to allow her to stay. Bondi added, “Accordingly, the First Assistant United States Attorney in New Jersey has just been removed. This Department of Justice does not tolerate rogue judges — especially when they threaten the President’s core Article II powers.”

Brann, while striking down the appointment, paused the outcome of his own ruling to allow the administration time to appeal. That means the fight is far from over and will now move to a federal appeals court.

This battle over a single prosecutor’s seat may seem narrow, but its implications are anything but. It represents the ongoing tug-of-war between elected authority and unelected judicial power — and it’s a reminder that the limits of executive authority, especially in staffing key law enforcement roles, remain one of the defining questions in the struggle over how our government operates. Conservatives will see in this case not just a personnel matter, but another example of judicial overreach that puts bureaucratic technicalities ahead of common-sense governance and public safety.