In New Jersey, a federal judge declared on Thursday that Alina Habba is not lawfully serving as the U.S. Attorney overseeing federal prosecutions in the state. This ruling disrupts the Trump administration’s efforts to assign its chosen appointees to acting roles in prosecuting offices nationwide.
Judge Matthew Brann, the chief district judge for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, stated in a 77-page order, “After reviewing several issues of first impression, the Court concludes that Ms. Habba has exercised the functions and duties of the office of the United States Attorney for the District of New Jersey without lawful authority since July 1, 2025.”
Judge Brann’s order was in reaction to a legal challenge against Habba’s appointment brought forth by three separate criminal defendants charged in the District of New Jersey. Although Judge Brann declined to grant the defendants’ request for case dismissal due to Habba’s apparent unlawful service, he deemed Habba disqualified from participating in any of their cases, alongside “any ongoing” cases in the office.
It appears that the Executive branch has perpetuated Habba’s appointment through a unique blend of legal and personnel moves, causing a disagreement with the Judges of the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey and criminal defendants about who should lead the office. Judge Brann concluded that Habba is not lawfully performing the functions and duties of the office.
After Trump named Habba, one of his former personal attorneys, as New Jersey’s interim U.S. attorney in March, the Senate did not confirm her before the termination of her 120-day interim term. Consequently, a panel of federal judges appointed Assistant U.S. Attorney Desiree Leigh Grace to the permanent U.S. attorney spot last month. However, in a sequence of unexpected actions, the Justice Department dismissed Grace, and the White House withdrew Habba’s nomination, enabling her to continue acting as the U.S. attorney for the state.
The Justice Department is likely to quickly appeal Judge Brann’s decision, which could influence other districts where the administration has similarly extended the tenures of several appointees. For now, Judge Brann has suspended the impact of his order, awaiting the appeals process.
This raises important questions about the appointment process and the balance of power in our democratic institutions. The public’s right to information remains paramount, and we will continue to monitor this story closely.
