A federal appeals court delivered a significant blow to former President Donald Trump's influence over the judiciary on Monday, ruling that his attempt to retain Alina Habba as the top federal prosecutor in New Jersey was in violation of legal requirements. The 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, in a unanimous 3-0 decision, upheld a lower court's order to remove Habba from her position, marking a setback for the Trump administration's efforts to maintain a grip on key legal posts.
The ruling, issued by a panel including two judges appointed by George W. Bush and one by Barack Obama, carries political significance as it challenges Trump's strategy to keep loyal prosecutors in Democratic-led districts, a move critics argue could influence sensitive federal cases. The administration may now seek a review from the full 3rd Circuit or appeal to the Supreme Court.
Habba, a former personal attorney for Trump and a staunch administration loyalist, had remained in charge after her temporary appointment expired. The court scrutinized the unusual steps taken by the Department of Justice, under the guidance of Attorney General Pam Bondi, to extend her tenure. This involved a complex maneuvering through overlapping mechanisms authorized by Congress, according to CNBC reports.
During October hearings, DOJ lawyers, including attorney Henry Whitaker, defended the administration's actions, arguing that they had carefully followed statutory rules. "In this case, the executive branch admittedly took a series of precise and precisely timed steps not to evade or circumvent those mechanisms but rather to be scrupulously careful to comply with them," Whitaker stated.
However, the judges expressed skepticism, questioning whether the process skirted constitutional limits on executive appointments. The challenge to Habba's position is indicative of a broader pattern of disputes over Trump-appointed prosecutors nationwide, with similar scrutiny being applied to interim U.S. attorneys Lindsey Halligan in Virginia and Bill Essayli in California, raising concerns about bypassing Senate confirmation or other statutory procedures.
Abbe Lowell, a D.C.-based litigator representing parties contesting Habba's authority, hailed the ruling as precedent-setting. "This marks the first time an appellate court has confirmed that President Trump cannot bypass longstanding statutory and constitutional procedures to install preferred U.S. Attorneys," Lowell remarked, as reported by Trending Politics. Co-counsel Gerald Krovatin echoed this sentiment, asserting their commitment to challenging unlawful appointments.
The dispute originated after Bondi appointed Habba as interim U.S. Attorney following the rapid resignation of her predecessor. Although Trump formally nominated Habba in June, she never underwent the constitutionally required Senate confirmation. Under the Federal Vacancies Reform Act (FVRA), such interim appointments are time-limited. To circumvent this, the administration appointed Habba as both "Special Attorney" to the attorney general and First Assistant U.S. Attorney, a move intended to automatically elevate her to acting U.S. Attorney.
The appeals court ruled that these measures violated FVRA provisions. Circuit Judge D. Michael Fisher, writing for the panel, emphasized the need for stability in the U.S. Attorney's Office. "The citizens of New Jersey and the loyal employees in the U.S. Attorney's Office deserve some clarity and stability," Fisher wrote, pointing out the uncertainty caused by the unusual appointment process.
The recent ruling follows similar decisions affecting Trump-appointed prosecutors, including Halligan, whose interim appointment in Virginia was invalidated last month. These collective rulings underscore that political loyalty does not trump statutory and constitutional safeguards, reinforcing the requirement that executive appointments adhere to legal frameworks even amid political and administrative pressures.
Although the decision does not directly impact ongoing criminal cases, it clarifies the limitations of presidential authority in appointing top federal prosecutors. By upholding procedural requirements, the 3rd Circuit decision highlights the judiciary's role in ensuring executive flexibility is balanced with adherence to the rule of law, signaling that attempts to strategically position loyalists in key districts will face close scrutiny.
