New Jersey’s federal courts have been thrust into chaos following a bombshell ruling by U.S. District Judge Matthew Brann on August 21, 2025, declaring that Alina Habba, the acting U.S. Attorney for New Jersey, has been serving without legal authority since July 1. The decision not only threatens to upend ongoing prosecutions but also challenges the Trump administration’s approach to filling top federal prosecutor roles nationwide, igniting a fierce debate over executive power and Senate oversight.
Judge Brann’s 77-page opinion, as reported by The New York Times, left little room for ambiguity: “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.” He further ordered that Habba “must be disqualified from participating in any ongoing cases,” though he stayed the order pending an appeal from the U.S. Justice Department, led by Attorney General Pam Bondi.
The controversy centers on a series of complex legal and personnel maneuvers designed to keep Habba in office after her 120-day interim appointment expired in July. According to The Washington Post, the Trump administration’s strategy involved firing career prosecutors, reappointing Habba in various capacities, and attempting to use the Federal Vacancies Reform Act to justify her continued leadership. The judge found these tactics insufficient, stating that Habba “was not first assistant when the U.S. attorney seat became vacant, as the law required,” and that her special attorney designation “did not pass muster” because the duties were essentially the same as those of a U.S. attorney.
The immediate fallout has been swift and severe. As Politico detailed, U.S. District Judge Esther Salas postponed indefinitely the sentencing of Marc Schessel, a CEO convicted of pandemic-era fraud, citing the uncertainty over Habba’s authority. This is just the tip of the iceberg: court records show that Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche has begun co-signing legal filings with Habba in routine cases, a clear attempt to shield prosecutions from legal challenges. “If other judges follow Salas’ approach, countless criminal prosecutions could be held up while higher courts sort out whether the multi-step maneuver the Trump administration used to keep Habba in place without Senate confirmation is legal,” Politico warned.
The disarray extends beyond courtrooms. The historically prestigious U.S. Attorney’s Office for New Jersey has seen morale collapse and leadership dwindle. Caroline Sadlowski, a top official, announced her departure just days after the ruling. According to The New York Times, few proceedings are moving forward, and prosecutors now routinely appear in court “on behalf of the deputy attorney general as well as on behalf of Habba,” highlighting the unprecedented uncertainty over who is in charge.
Habba, who previously served as President Donald Trump’s personal attorney and had no criminal law experience before her appointment, has not shied away from controversy. In a Fox News appearance on August 21, she blasted Senators Cory Booker, Andy Kim, and Chuck Grassley for blocking her nomination, calling the judge’s decision “disturbing.” 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.” Habba also claimed, “You might try and change my title, you might try and fight me, but just like today with New York, we will win,” referencing Trump’s recent legal victory in a separate civil fraud case.
Attorney General Pam Bondi has been equally defiant, vowing to “immediately appeal” what she called “activist judicial attacks.” On social media, Bondi praised Habba for “doing incredible work in New Jersey” and assured supporters that the Justice Department would protect her position. As of midday Friday, however, the appeal had yet to be filed, leaving the state’s federal court system in limbo.
The roots of the crisis trace back to March 2025, when Trump appointed Habba as interim U.S. Attorney. Her nomination for the permanent role was quickly met with resistance from New Jersey’s Democratic senators, who signaled their intent to block confirmation. When a panel of federal judges declined to extend her tenure, Bondi fired the judges’ replacement—career prosecutor Desiree L. Grace—and installed Habba through a controversial series of reappointments. The resulting legal challenges, as reported by The Week, have left the district court system at a near standstill, stalling hearings, plea agreements, grand jury proceedings, and trials—including a high-profile triple homicide case now rescheduled for November.
Legal experts say the implications go far beyond New Jersey. Judge Brann’s ruling criticized the administration’s “novel series of legal and personnel moves” and warned that, unchecked, such strategies could allow the president to “seat U.S. attorneys of his personal choice for an entire term without seeking the Senate’s advice and consent.” Georgetown University law professor Stephen I. Vladeck observed, “The Habba case might be the most visible example of this, but the district court’s decision here, if affirmed, would prevent the Trump administration from similar machinations in the rest of the country as well.” Similar appointment tactics have reportedly been used in California, Arizona, New Mexico, and New York.
Not everyone agrees with the judge’s interpretation. Stanford law professor Anne Joseph O’Connell told The New York Times that the ability to install acting leaders is vital in an era of political gridlock: “Modern agencies run on delegation in the face of a broken appointments process.” She warned that if Brann’s ruling is upheld, it could “upend common practice of acting officials under Democratic and Republican administrations.”
The debate over the separation of powers, executive authority, and the Senate’s role in confirmations is now front and center. Henry C. Whitaker, representing the Justice Department, argued in court that federal law gives the executive branch “substantial authority to decide who is executing the criminal laws of the United States.” The Supreme Court, he said, has made clear that this is “at the core of the executive power.”
Meanwhile, the practical effects are being felt by defendants, victims, and the broader public. Lawyers for those challenging Habba’s authority emphasized, “Prosecutors wield enormous power, and with that comes the responsibility to ensure they are qualified and properly appointed. This administration cannot circumvent the congressionally mandated process for confirming U.S. attorney appointments.”
As New Jersey’s courts remain in turmoil and the Justice Department prepares its appeal, the outcome of this legal battle could redefine how America’s top federal prosecutors are chosen—and who gets to wield the awesome power of the office.
