Judge finds Alina Habba unlawfully served as US attorney in New Jersey while representing former President Trump.
A federal judge has determined that Alina Habba, former attorney for President Donald Trump, has been unlawfully serving as the interim U.S. attorney for New Jersey. The ruling, delivered on Thursday, found that the Trump administration’s approach to retaining Habba in the role, without Senate confirmation, violated established federal law.
Chief U.S. District Judge Matthew Brann articulated that the administration employed “a novel series of legal and personnel moves” regarding Habba’s status. He indicated that her interim appointment should have concluded in July, with necessary protocols for appointing a permanent U.S. attorney not being duly followed. In his conclusion, Brann stated that Habba does not possess the lawful authority to carry out the functions of the U.S. attorney for the District of New Jersey.
While the ruling effectively challenges Habba’s authority in her prosecutorial duties, Brann has opted to suspend the order pending an appeal, allowing for the possibility of an extended legal battle.
This judicial decision arose from a request made by defendants in New Jersey, who contested the legitimacy of Habba’s ongoing prosecution efforts against them. They argued that with her interim appointment having expired after 120 days, she lacked the authority to pursue their cases, prompting the court’s scrutiny of her role.
Habba’s tenure, marked by some contentious actions, included bringing charges against Newark Mayor Ras Baraka and Democratic Rep. LaMonica McIver, a move that garnered significant media attention. Her appointment was briefly celebrated by Trump in March when she expressed ambitions to transform New Jersey politically. However, her aspirations faced challenges, particularly when her nomination stalled due to opposition from Democratic senators from New Jersey, Cory Booker and Andy Kim, which effectively hindered her confirmation process.
Compounding her situation, after withdrawing her nomination, the administration attempted to place her back in authority despite federal judges in New Jersey already exercising their prerogative to appoint a career prosecutor to fill her vacancy. These actions led to an ongoing legal dispute over the appropriate authority governing U.S. attorney appointments.
The Justice Department has asserted in court filings that judges acted prematurely in their decision and reaffirmed that the president possesses the right to appoint preferred candidates to enforce federal laws. This case is emblematic of broader tensions surrounding political appointments and executive authority, particularly in the context of the Trump administration’s controversial tenure.
As the legal proceedings unfold, the case continues to highlight the complexities of federal appointments and the political ramifications of such actions.
