A federal appeals court has dealt a significant blow to Alina Habba’s aspirations as U.S. attorney for New Jersey. The judges ruled Monday that her appointment does not comply with legal standards, effectively disqualifying her. This came shortly after Attorney General Pam Bondi chose Habba as an interim U.S. attorney, granting her a temporary role for 120 days. In June, President Donald Trump nominated Habba for the permanent position, but the Senate did not take action, prompting Trump to withdraw her nomination on July 24.
The court’s opinion, crafted by Judge D. Michael Fisher, highlights concerns about adherence to the Federal Vacancies Reform Act. Along with fellow judges D. Brooks Smith and L. Felipe Restrepo, Fisher pointed out that the process of appointing Habba violated legal protocols. “Under the Government’s delegation theory, Habba may avoid the gauntlet of presidential appointment and Senate confirmation and serve as the de facto U.S. Attorney indefinitely,” the ruling stated.
The judges argued that this interpretation could effectively bypass the constitutional process of Senate confirmation for U.S. officers. The appeals court ruled that it is the district court’s prerogative to appoint an interim U.S. attorney when a vacancy is present, not the attorney general’s. Statute § 546 specifically indicates that after the initial 120 days, an appointed official can only continue in the role until confirmed by the Senate or an appropriate successor is named by the district court.
This ruling opens the door for further questions about how the executive branch navigates appointments. Justice Department lawyer Henry Whitaker defended the government’s actions, stating they adhered to legal processes. However, the judiciary raised substantial concerns about the constitutional implications of their approach. One judge explicitly asked if the government was attempting a “complete circumvention” of the appointments clause, underscoring the potential reach of their legal theories.
The ruling has significant ramifications, not just for Habba but also for other recent appointments made by the Trump administration. A similar situation has unfolded in Virginia with Lindsey Halligan, whose interim role as U.S. attorney faced judicial scrutiny. As the legal environment continues to evolve, the Trump administration now considers appealing Habba’s disqualification to the full panel of judges or potentially up to the U.S. Supreme Court.
This case reflects ongoing tensions between the executive branch’s ambitions and the judicial system’s checks and balances. The appointment issues raise critical questions about authority, compliance with constitutional norms, and the broader implications for future U.S. attorneys.
"*" indicates required fields
