A federal judge has determined that Alina Habba, former personal lawyer to President Trump, has been unlawfully serving as the acting U.S. attorney for New Jersey. In a decision that could have far-reaching implications for the Trump administration, Judge Matthew Brann of the Middle District of Pennsylvania ruled on Thursday that President Trump's attempt to maintain his ally in a powerful prosecutorial position was illegal under federal law.
The controversy surrounding Habba's appointment began in July, when her 120-day interim term expired. A panel of judges, mostly appointed by Democratic presidents, refused to extend her temporary tenure while she awaited Senate confirmation for the permanent role. Instead, the panel appointed Desiree Leigh Grace, Habba's first assistant prosecutor, to the position—a move that directly challenged Trump's preferred choice for the high-profile job.
In response, President Trump withdrew Habba's nomination for the permanent position, only to appoint her as first assistant U.S. attorney shortly thereafter. This strategic move was perceived as a legal workaround, allowing Habba to continue leading the office in an acting capacity. However, Judge Brann's ruling has now disrupted this plan, stating, "Ms. Habba is not currently qualified to exercise the functions and duties of the office in an acting capacity, she must be disqualified from participating in any ongoing cases."
Habba's path to this pivotal role began during Trump's 2024 campaign when she gained prominence defending the former president in New York civil cases and later joined his presidential campaign team. Following Trump's election victory, Habba briefly served as Counselor to the President before being appointed to helm the New Jersey U.S. attorney's office, returning her to her home state where she first established her connection with Trump.
The ruling has placed Habba's path to permanent confirmation under jeopardy, particularly as both of New Jersey's Democratic senators have expressed opposition to her nomination, presenting a considerable barrier to her Senate confirmation. Additionally, the legality of her appointment is being challenged in two separate criminal cases, with attorneys arguing that it violates federal statutory requirements.
Legal experts predict that Judge Brann's decision will be appealed, with the administration likely to seek redress in higher courts. The ruling has stirred up not only legal but also political debate, as it touches on the broader topic of the administration's judicial appointments and the intricate balance of power among branches of government.
