In a sweeping and unanimous rebuke delivered on December 1, 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit ruled that Alina Habba, a former personal attorney to President Donald Trump, had been unlawfully serving as the acting U.S. attorney for New Jersey. The decision, which affirmed an earlier district court order, represents one of the most consequential legal setbacks for the Trump administration’s ongoing efforts to circumvent Senate confirmation and install political loyalists in key Justice Department posts.
The controversy began earlier this year when U.S. Attorney Philip Sellinger resigned in January 2025. John Giordano temporarily stepped in as interim U.S. attorney, but his tenure was short-lived. Attorney General Pam Bondi, a Trump ally, soon replaced Giordano with Habba in late March. Habba, who had gained national attention as Trump’s combative legal spokesperson during his civil fraud trials, was seen as a loyalist but faced immediate criticism over her lack of prosecutorial experience and a history of pro-Trump litigation that had resulted in a hefty $938,000 penalty upheld by a federal appeals court just last month, according to Reason magazine.
President Trump formally nominated Habba for the permanent U.S. attorney role in June—a position that, by law, requires Senate confirmation. However, her prospects looked dim. Both of New Jersey’s Democratic senators opposed her nomination, and her record of controversial litigation did little to help her case. On July 24, facing mounting opposition and legal hurdles, Trump withdrew her nomination. Habba resigned as interim U.S. attorney but was immediately appointed by Bondi as first assistant U.S. attorney, a move seemingly designed to exploit a technicality: under federal law, the first assistant automatically assumes the office’s duties when a vacancy arises.
But the plot thickened when the judges of the District of New Jersey, exercising their authority under the Federal Vacancies Reform Act (FVRA), selected Desiree Grace, a respected career prosecutor, to serve as acting U.S. attorney instead of extending Habba’s interim term. Bondi, undeterred, fired Grace and reinstalled Habba as first assistant, hoping she would then, by default, reclaim the acting U.S. attorney title. This elaborate series of personnel moves, as described by the Third Circuit, amounted to a “novel mechanism” intended to sidestep statutory time limits and constitutional checks on executive power.
The appeals court was unambiguous in its rejection. “It is apparent that the current administration has been frustrated by some of the legal and political barriers to getting its appointees in place,” wrote Judge D. Michael Fisher, one of two George W. Bush appointees on the panel. “The unusual series of legal moves taken by the Department of Justice to install Habba, one of Trump’s former personal lawyers, as an acting U.S. attorney demonstrates 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.”
The court’s 32-page opinion meticulously outlined why Habba’s appointment violated the FVRA and the Constitution’s appointments clause. The judges found that only the first assistant in place at the time of the vacancy could automatically assume the role, and that Habba was doubly disqualified: she had not served as first assistant for at least 90 days, and she had been nominated for the permanent post, which itself barred her from acting status. As Fisher wrote, “Habba is not the Acting U.S. Attorney for the District of New Jersey by virtue of her appointment as First Assistant U.S. Attorney, because only the first assistant in place at the time the vacancy arises automatically assumes the functions and duties of the office.”
The court further dismissed Bondi’s attempt to sidestep these requirements by appointing Habba as a “special attorney,” noting that the FVRA is “the exclusive means for temporarily authorizing an acting official” unless another statute provides otherwise. Accepting the administration’s maneuver, the court warned, would “render the Vacancies Act’s time limits meaningless” and allow the president to “bypass the constitutional (appointment and Senate confirmation) process entirely.”
The ramifications of the ruling are immediate and far-reaching. Habba is now disqualified from exercising the powers of the U.S. attorney’s office, casting doubt on the validity of indictments, plea agreements, and prosecutorial actions she undertook during her tenure. As CNBC reported, attorneys for parties challenging Habba’s appointment hailed the decision as a landmark. “The ruling marks the first time an appellate court has ruled that President Trump cannot usurp longstanding statutory and constitutional processes to insert whomever he wants in these positions,” noted lawyers Abbe Lowell and Gerald Krovatin in a statement.
Habba’s brief time as acting U.S. attorney was not without controversy. In May, she brought a trespassing charge—later dropped—against Democratic Newark Mayor Ras Baraka after a confrontation with federal immigration officials. The following month, Rep. LaMonica McIver, a Democrat from New Jersey, was charged with assault in a rare federal criminal case against a sitting member of Congress. McIver denied the charges and pleaded not guilty; the case remains pending.
The New Jersey case is not isolated. The ruling shines a spotlight on what legal experts and critics say is a broader pattern: the Trump administration’s concerted push to place loyal attorneys in interim roles across the federal government, often in defiance of Senate opposition and established legal norms. Similar legal challenges have emerged in Virginia, where Lindsey Halligan, another Trump-aligned attorney, was installed as interim U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia. Last month, a federal judge dismissed indictments Halligan obtained against former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James, finding her appointment also violated the 120-day interim limit. The Justice Department has indicated it will appeal these rulings.
The panel’s ruling in the Habba case is the first from a federal appeals court to directly confront—and firmly reject—these appointment maneuvers. As Thomas Mirigliano, an attorney for one of the defendants who challenged Habba’s eligibility, told CNN, “The panel issued a clear and carefully reasoned decision that recognizes the extraordinary power vested in U.S. attorneys and reinforces the limits Congress has set on who may occupy those positions. We appreciate the court’s thoughtful approach and the clarity it brings to this important issue.”
Legal observers expect the Trump administration to appeal the Third Circuit’s decision to the U.S. Supreme Court, where a definitive ruling could determine the boundaries of presidential authority over interim appointments. In the meantime, the Justice Department faces a stark choice: nominate a candidate who can secure Senate confirmation or rely on a court-appointed interim U.S. attorney to restore stability and legality to the New Jersey office.
As the dust settles from this latest legal battle, the message from the courts is unmistakable: the rule of law and the constitutional framework for federal appointments remain non-negotiable, even in the face of determined political maneuvering.
