A federal appeals court ruled Monday that Alina Habba, a former personal attorney for President Donald Trump, is unlawfully serving as the U.S. Attorney for New Jersey. The decision is a significant legal setback for the Trump administration and could have far-reaching consequences for other appointments nationwide.
A three-judge panel of the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a lower court’s finding that the administration violated federal law by using a series of maneuvers to install Habba after she failed to secure Senate confirmation.
“Under the Government’s delegation theory, Habba may avoid the gauntlet of presidential appointment and Senate confirmation and serve as the de facto U.S. Attorney indefinitely,” the unanimous panel wrote. “This view is so broad that it bypasses the constitutional (appointment and Senate confirmation) process entirely.”
The case is the first challenge to the Trump administration’s method for appointing U.S. attorneys to be decided by a federal appeals court. Although the 3rd Circuit’s jurisdiction covers New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, and the U.S. Virgin Islands, its rulings on novel legal issues are often influential in other federal courts, and the case could ultimately reach the U.S. Supreme Court.
The ruling follows similar decisions by district court judges who found that the U.S. attorneys for the central district of California and Nevada are also serving unlawfully. Those cases are currently under appeal. Separately, a district court recently dismissed two indictments after concluding that Lindsey Halligan, the U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, was improperly appointed.
The legal challenge in New Jersey centered on the process used to keep Habba in her role. After Trump named her interim U.S. Attorney, she resigned as the 120-day appointment was set to expire. Attorney General Pam Bondi then named Habba a “special attorney,” designated her as the first assistant U.S. attorney, and delegated the full authority of the office back to her.
While criminal cases have largely proceeded in the affected districts, some judges have postponed trials or sentencings. To date, judges have not dismissed the indictments of the defendants who successfully challenged the appointments, noting that other legally appointed prosecutors were also involved in those cases.
Source link
