In a dramatic turn of events that has sent shockwaves through the legal and political landscape of New Jersey, a federal judge has ruled that Alina Habba, President Donald Trump’s former personal lawyer, has been unlawfully serving as the state’s top federal prosecutor since July 2025. The decision, handed down on August 21 by Chief U.S. District Judge Matthew Brann, rebukes the Trump administration’s attempts to keep Habba in the role through what the court described as “a novel series of legal and personnel moves.”
Habba’s appointment as interim U.S. attorney for the District of New Jersey began in March 2025, a move that immediately attracted attention given her close ties to President Trump and her previous service as his White House counselor. According to The Associated Press, her appointment was always controversial, with Habba making headlines for stating that New Jersey could “turn red”—a rare and overtly political stance for a federal prosecutor. She also signaled her intention to investigate the state’s Democratic governor and attorney general, adding fuel to partisan tensions.
Federal law stipulates that interim U.S. attorneys may serve for a maximum of 120 days unless their appointment is extended by a panel of district judges or they are confirmed by the U.S. Senate. Habba’s term expired in July 2025, but the Trump administration sought to keep her in the position despite clear opposition from New Jersey’s two Democratic senators, Cory Booker and Andy Kim. Their resistance effectively stalled her Senate confirmation, and President Trump ultimately withdrew her nomination.
The leadership crisis escalated when federal judges in New Jersey declined to extend Habba’s appointment, instead naming her deputy, career prosecutor Desiree Leigh Grace, to the post. However, Attorney General Pam Bondi swiftly fired Grace and reinstated Habba as acting U.S. attorney using an unconventional legal workaround. This maneuver, according to Judge Brann’s ruling, violated the Federal Vacancies Reform Act and failed to comply with the procedures required by federal law. As CBS News reported, Brann wrote, “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.”
The legal challenge to Habba’s continued service was brought by several defendants facing federal charges in New Jersey, including Julien Giraud Jr., Julien Giraud III, and Cesar Humberto Pina, who were charged with offenses ranging from drug and firearm violations to investment fraud. Their attorneys argued that Habba lacked the authority to prosecute them once her interim appointment had lapsed. In a statement lauding the court’s decision, lawyers Abbe David Lowell and Gerald Krovatin said, “Prosecutors wield enormous power, and with that comes the responsibility to ensure they are qualified and properly appointed. We appreciate the thoroughness of the court’s opinion, and its decision underscores that this Administration cannot circumvent the congressionally mandated process for confirming US Attorney appointments.”
Judge Brann’s order does not immediately remove Habba from office, as he stayed the ruling pending an appeal by the Justice Department. Attorney General Bondi, defending Habba’s tenure, stated on social media, “This Department of Justice does not tolerate rogue judges,” and vowed to protect Habba’s position from what she described as “activist judicial attacks.”
The controversy over Habba’s appointment is only the latest episode in an ongoing power struggle between the Trump administration and the judiciary over the appointment of U.S. attorneys. While the president typically nominates candidates for these posts, Senate confirmation is required—a process that has grown increasingly contentious. When nominations are blocked or delayed, district judges have the authority to extend interim appointments, but the Trump administration has repeatedly sought ways to circumvent these checks, sometimes by re-appointing favored candidates through legal loopholes. As The Wall Street Journal noted, similar maneuvers have been attempted in other districts, though some Trump picks, such as Jay Clayton in New York and Jeanine Pirro in Washington, D.C., have ultimately won Senate approval.
Habba’s handling of her office has drawn particular scrutiny. She has been accused of using her prosecutorial powers for partisan ends, most notably by opening investigations into Democratic officials. In one high-profile case, she charged Newark Mayor Ras Baraka with trespassing after he joined members of Congress on a tour of a federal immigration detention center. The charges were later dropped, and Baraka filed a civil complaint alleging false arrest and malicious prosecution. Judge Andre Espinosa, presiding over the matter, admonished Habba’s office, declaring, “An arrest, particularly of a public figure, is not a preliminary investigative tool.”
Habba has also pursued charges against Democratic Representative LaMonica McIver for assault in connection with the same incident at Delaney Hall. McIver has vehemently denied the allegations, describing them as “a blatant political attack.” Despite the controversy, Habba has continued to prosecute the case, further fueling accusations that her office is being used as a political weapon.
Questions about the legality of Habba’s appointment and the legitimacy of her actions have broad implications for the justice system in New Jersey. Defense lawyers argue that the administration’s tactics undermine the constitutional and statutory rights of thousands of criminal defendants and the 9.5 million residents subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. attorney. The Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers of New Jersey stated in a court filing, “The government’s machinations here undermine the constitutional and statutory rights of thousands of criminal defendants and 9.5 million residents subject to the jurisdiction of the top federal prosecutor for New Jersey.”
The Justice Department, for its part, maintains that Habba’s appointment was lawful and that, even if she did not technically qualify as acting U.S. attorney, she could still supervise and sign off on cases. Yet, as Judge Brann’s ruling makes clear, the administration’s workaround “may be declared void,” casting doubt on the validity of any actions taken by Habba since July 1.
As the legal battle moves to the appeals court, the future of federal prosecutions in New Jersey hangs in the balance. The case highlights the ongoing friction between the executive and judicial branches over the appointment and oversight of federal prosecutors, a tension that has only intensified in the polarized climate of recent years. For now, Judge Brann’s decision stands as a stern reminder that the process for appointing U.S. attorneys is not merely a formality—it is a crucial safeguard for the rule of law.
With the eyes of the nation watching, the outcome of the appeal will not only determine Habba’s fate but could also set a precedent for how administrations seek to navigate the complex interplay of politics, law, and justice in the highest offices of federal prosecution.
