A federal judge on Thursday rejected President Donald Trump’s maneuvering to keep Alina Habba in place as New Jersey’s top federal prosecutor, ruling that she has been serving without legal authority since July 1, and teeing up a potentially broader constitutional fight if the administration decides to appeal.
In a 77-page opinion, United States District Judge Matthew Brann wrote that Habba “is not lawfully holding the office of United States Attorney” and therefore cannot continue overseeing prosecutions as the acting U.S. attorney. The Trump administration had used a series of contested legal tactics to extend Habba’s tenure after her 120-day interim appointment expired.
“Faced with the question of whether Ms. Habba is lawfully performing the functions and duties of the office of the United States Attorney for the District of New Jersey, I conclude that she is not,” said Brann, an Obama-appointed judge in Pennsylvania.
“I conclude that Ms. Habba was ineligible to assume the functions and duties of the office of the United States Attorney for the District of New Jersey on July 24, 2025, because she was not the first assistant when the vacancy occurred upon Mr. [former U.S. Attorney Philip] Sellinger’s resignation on January 8, 2025,” Brann added. “Therefore, Ms. Habba may not participate in the defendants’ prosecutions going forward as the ‘acting United States Attorney.’”
The first assistant designation is significant because, under the Federal Vacancies Reform Act, that official automatically becomes the acting U.S. attorney when a vacancy opens. By making someone the first assistant, an administration can ensure its preferred choice slides into the top role and stays in charge if home state senators, in this case, Democratic New Jersey Sens. Cory Booker and Andy Kim, contest a president’s pick.
Still, the ruling is not immediately effective. Brann stayed his order while the Justice Department appeals, leaving Habba temporarily in charge of the office and setting up a high-stakes battle in the appellate courts.
Supporters of Habba, such as her former colleague, Trump attorney Jesus Suarez, said she is not one to back down from a fight.
“Alina is one of the greatest legal fighters you’ve ever met, and she’s never backed down from any fight or any court. She is a force of nature,” Suarez said.
The decision came in response to challenges from criminal defense attorneys, who argued their clients’ prosecutions were tainted because Habba was kept in place despite not previously serving as the first assistant to the office. Brann declined to throw out charges against the defendants who challenged her authority, but warned that any case supervised by Habba could face disqualification.
Habba, a former personal attorney to Trump, has been at the center of weeks of uncertainty over the federal prosecutor’s office’s leadership as courts and the administration clashed over vacancy rules.
After Habba’s 120-day interim tenure expired, a panel of New Jersey federal district judges declined to keep her on. Instead, they exercised their statutory authority to appoint her first assistant, Desiree Leigh Grace, as acting U.S. attorney. Grace, a career prosecutor with clerkships under New Jersey’s chief justice and a Third Circuit judge, had already risen to lead the office’s criminal division. Some critics have described her as a never-Trump Republican, however.
The Trump administration swiftly moved to block the judges’ appointment of Grace.
Attorney General Pam Bondi fired Grace almost immediately, accusing the judiciary of acting with political motives, and installed Habba under an alternative designation as a “special attorney” to sidestep the vacancy rules. Trump then withdrew Habba’s pending Senate nomination and named her as the first assistant, a maneuver that, under federal vacancy law, allowed her to continue serving in an acting capacity for several more months.
Those actions set up a direct clash between the judiciary and the executive branch over who controls vacancies in the most powerful federal prosecutor’s office in New Jersey, a confrontation that ultimately drew legal challenges and led to Brann’s ruling that Habba was serving unlawfully.
Legal experts say Brann’s decision is unique in that he ruled narrowly against the administration’s procedural maneuver, which some described as a loophole, to keep Habba in place. This stood out to some people who spoke to the Washington Examiner because courts in the past have typically deferred to administrations’ authority in light of historically inconsistent applications of the Federal Vacancies Reform Act.
Under a provision in the Act, if a president’s nominees for U.S. attorneys’ offices are not confirmed in the Senate 300 days after the start of his presidency, the nominees in place are downgraded from “acting officer” to “performing the functions and duties of the office.”
Trump and past presidents have relied on that reclassification and effectively let stalled nominations die, since the Senate’s blue slip tradition prevents a nominee from moving forward without the approval of both home-state senators. Once that happens, the Federal Vacancies Reform Act allows the administration to use the reclassification process to bypass the Senate and keep control of the post without a confirmed U.S. attorney.
Legal experts suggested Brann’s ruling, while abnormal, attempted to effectuate what Congress intended under the statute, rather than what is actually written in it. However, experts say that if Brann’s ruling can stand, it could hamstring any president’s ability to enforce his priorities.
“Every president wants to make sure that there are people to enforce the law and execute the law consistent with the constitutional obligations when they take office,” Eric Wessan, the solicitor general for the state of Iowa, told the Washington Examiner.
“And for Judge Brann to wave that away and say that, sure, that’s what is done, but that’s not necessarily how it must be done. That’s not what the statutes say. It ignores a certain amount of grace that the judicial branch typically affords the executive branch, and I think it really misreads the implications of the history as to U.S. attorneys and more generally, as to other acting positions,” Wessan said.
Thomas Berry, director of Constitutional Studies at Cato Institute, similarly said Brann’s decision opens up a broader constitutional debate about presidential authorities.
TRUMP SEEKS TO INSTALL HIS US ATTORNEYS DESPITE DEMOCRATIC HEADWINDS
“So if other states, if other courts, adopted this as a precedent, that you can’t use this first assistant workaround, that would be a pretty big deal. It would take away a major appointment option, not just for U.S. attorneys,” Berry said.
A spokesperson for Habba did not immediately comment on the decision. The Justice Department did not respond to a request for comment.