Judge rules Alina Habba unlawfully serving as acting U.S. attorney for New Jersey

In New Jersey, a significant judicial ruling occurred on August 20, 2025, when U.S. District Judge Matthew Brann declared that Alina Habba, a former attorney for President Donald Trump, was unlawfully serving as the state's acting U.S. attorney since July 1, 2025. This decision stemmed from a legal challenge posed by two defendants in criminal cases who contended that Habba's appointment violated the Federal Vacancies Reform Act, which governs the appointment of acting officials in the federal government. The judge's ruling highlighted several procedural irregularities related to her appointment and the efforts made by the Trump administration to circumvent typical appointment procedures in federal offices. The controversy began when Habba was appointed interim U.S. attorney for New Jersey earlier in the year. Her appointment was intended to be temporary and was subject to a 120-day limit. However, as her tenure approached its expiration, federal judges in New Jersey decided not to extend her position. Instead, they appointed Desiree Leigh Grace, a career prosecutor, to take over the role. In a surprising twist, the Trump administration responded by firing Grace and attempting to keep Habba in her position by withdrawing her nomination and designating her as acting U.S. attorney, utilizing legal loopholes in federal vacancy laws. Judge Brann, in his 77-page order, definitively ruled against Habba's continued service in that role, emphasizing that she cannot perform the duties of a U.S. attorney without proper legal authority. The plaintiffs argued that all actions taken by her in that capacity since July 1 should be invalidated. While Brann did not dismiss the charges against the two defendants who challenged her authority, he disqualified Habba from overseeing their cases, marking a significant shift in the prosecutorial landscape in New Jersey. This ruling is expected to prompt further challenges from defendants in other cases who may seek to contest actions taken by Habba. In response to the ruling, the Department of Justice has indicated that it might pursue an appeal, recognizing the potential implications for other Trump appointees across the country who have similarly faced challenges regarding their appointments. The legal debate surrounding these appointments raises important questions about judicial independence, executive power, and the adherence to established legal procedures in federal appointments. This case not only impacts the functioning of the U.S. attorney's office in New Jersey but could also set a precedent affecting federal prosecutor appointments nationwide, as previous similar cases indicate a pattern of exploitative legal maneuvering by the previous administration.