On August 21, 2025, a federal judge delivered a seismic blow to the Trump administration’s legal maneuvering in New Jersey, ruling that Alina Habba—once a fierce defender of former President Donald Trump—has been unlawfully serving as the state’s top federal prosecutor since July. The decision, handed down by U.S. District Judge Matthew W. Brann, casts a long shadow over the legitimacy of Habba’s actions as acting U.S. Attorney and signals broader questions about executive authority and the Senate’s constitutional role in confirming federal prosecutors.
Judge Brann’s 77-page opinion, as reported by multiple outlets including the Associated Press and Washington Post, minced no words: “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, a Republican appointed to the federal bench by President Barack Obama, asserted that the Trump administration’s “novel series of legal and personnel moves” to keep Habba in office sidestepped federal law—specifically, the requirement that U.S. attorneys be confirmed by the Senate.
The saga began on March 24, 2025, when Trump named Habba as interim U.S. Attorney for New Jersey, a role she was sworn into four days later. Under federal law, such interim appointments are capped at 120 days. As that window closed in July, Trump nominated Habba for the permanent post on June 30, but the Senate—where New Jersey’s two Democratic senators, Cory Booker and Andy Kim, wielded significant influence—declined to act on her nomination. Sensing the impending expiration of her interim term, the judges of the U.S. District Court of New Jersey used their statutory authority to appoint Habba’s deputy as the new U.S. Attorney on July 22.
But the Trump administration wasn’t ready to let go. According to Judge Brann’s ruling, Attorney General Pam Bondi fired the newly appointed U.S. Attorney (Habba’s deputy) and quickly named Habba as “Special Attorney to the Attorney General.” Bondi then slotted Habba into the vacant deputy position, which allowed her to resume the acting U.S. Attorney role. Brann described these moves as “improper” and a clear attempt to circumvent the Senate’s constitutional role in confirming U.S. Attorneys. In his words, “Taken to the extreme, the President could use this method to staff the United States Attorney’s office with individuals of his personal choice for an entire term without seeking the Senate's advice and consent.”
While the ruling’s immediate effect is on hold pending appeal, its implications are significant. If upheld, it could open the door to challenges against other U.S. attorneys installed by similar means—without Senate confirmation after their temporary assignments expired. Legal observers note that this could have ripple effects throughout the federal justice system, especially if other prosecutors’ appointments are found to have skirted the same requirements.
Attorney General Bondi was quick to denounce the ruling, vowing on social media: “We will immediately appeal… Habba is doing incredible work in New Jersey—and we will protect her position from activist judicial attacks.” Habba herself, speaking to Fox News, lambasted both the Senate Democrats she accused of stalling her confirmation and what she called “rogue judges” who are “trying to be political.” She insisted, “I am the pick of the president. I am the pick of Pam Bondi, our attorney general, and I will serve this country like I have for the last several years in any capacity.”
The origins of the legal challenge trace back to two criminal defendants prosecuted by Habba’s office. Their lawyers, Abbe Lowell and Gerald Krovatin, argued that Habba’s appointment “ignored the rules that give legitimacy to the U.S. Attorney’s office.” In a joint statement, they said, “We appreciate the thoroughness of the court’s opinion, and its decision underscores that this Administration cannot circumvent the congressionally mandated process for confirming U.S. Attorney appointments.”
The controversy around Habba’s appointment is not merely procedural. Her tenure as acting U.S. Attorney was marked by overt political ambitions and high-profile prosecutions. Shortly after her appointment, Habba declared in an interview her intention to “turn New Jersey red”—a rare political statement for a federal prosecutor. She targeted Democratic officials in the state, including bringing a trespassing charge (later dropped) against Newark Mayor Ras Baraka and filing an assault charge against Democratic U.S. Rep. LaMonica McIver, stemming from an incident at a federal immigration detention center. McIver has denied the charges and pleaded not guilty.
Habba’s legal career has long been intertwined with Trump’s political fortunes. She represented Trump in both criminal and civil proceedings before his return to the White House and briefly served as a White House adviser prior to her appointment as a federal prosecutor. On the same day as Judge Brann’s ruling, Habba scored a major legal victory when an appeals court threw out the New York attorney general’s $500 million fraud judgment against Trump—a case she had worked on. Habba celebrated the outcome on social media, calling the fraud action “politically motivated” and “legally baseless.” Her post read: “President Trump won—and justice won with him.”
The Justice Department, for its part, contended that the federal judges in New Jersey acted prematurely in replacing Habba and maintained that Trump had the authority to appoint his preferred candidate to enforce federal laws in the state. Yet, as Brann’s opinion makes clear, presidential appointments—even for top prosecutors—are bound by statutory time limits and power-sharing rules spelled out in federal law.
For many legal experts and lawmakers, the case underscores a perennial tension in American government: the balance of power between the executive branch and the Senate in the appointment of federal officials. Brann’s ruling suggests that, at least in this instance, the administration’s creative staffing maneuvers went too far. As he wrote, “The Executive branch has perpetuated Alina Habba’s appointment to act as the United States Attorney for the District of New Jersey through a novel series of legal and personnel moves.”
While the Trump administration prepares its appeal, the future of federal prosecutions in New Jersey hangs in the balance. The ruling has left both supporters and critics of Habba’s appointment bracing for further legal and political battles. For now, Brann’s decision stands as a pointed reminder that even the most powerful offices in the land are not above the rules—and that the checks and balances enshrined in the Constitution remain as relevant as ever.
