A major legal decision has shaken the federal justice system in New Jersey. A federal appeals court has ruled that Alina Habba was not legally serving as the acting U.S. attorney. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit agreed with an earlier ruling from a district judge, saying her appointment did not follow federal law. This decision came after three men facing criminal charges challenged the legality of her position and argued that the steps taken to place her in the role went against the Federal Vacancies Reform Act.
The lower court had already found that she had been serving “without lawful authority” since early July. The appeals court reviewed the details and supported that finding completely.
The case also marked the first time that a federal appeals court examined the process used by the administration to place temporary U.S. attorneys around the country. The judges agreed that the approach used in New Jersey did not meet the legal requirements and would create a loophole large enough to ignore the constitutional system of appointments.
How a chain of actions led to the controversy
The issue began when she was chosen as interim U.S. attorney, a role limited to 120 days unless extended by judges or confirmed by the Senate. The judges in New Jersey declined to extend her term and instead selected Desiree Leigh Grace. Shortly after, Grace was removed from the position by Attorney General Pam Bondi, creating an opening for a new attempt to keep her in place.
A series of steps followed. The president withdrew her nomination. She resigned from the interim role. She was then appointed as a “special attorney” and placed in Grace’s former position as first assistant U.S. attorney. With the top job now considered “vacant,” the administration treated her as eligible to return as acting U.S. attorney under the Vacancies Act.
The appeals court reviewed this sequence and said it allowed someone to hold a powerful federal role without the required process. The judges found that this method could let an acting U.S. attorney stay in office indefinitely without Senate approval, which goes against constitutional expectations. Judge Michael Fisher wrote the opinion, with Judges L. Felipe Restrepo and D. Brooks Smith joining the unanimous ruling.
Trump backs bipartisan bill ordering public release of DOJ’s Epstein documents
Arguments made to the court and key reactions
Several lawyers involved in the case said the decision protects important limits on the use of federal power. Abbe Lowell, Gerry Krovatin and Norm Eisen issued a joint statement praising the ruling. According to them, the decision made it clear that the appointment did not respect the long-standing laws that govern who can run a U.S. attorney’s office. They also said they would continue to challenge similar appointments wherever they appear.
Another lawyer involved in the case, Thomas Mirigliano, said the judges provided a careful explanation that highlighted why the rules about temporary appointments are so important. He noted that U.S. attorneys have “extraordinary power” and therefore must be appointed in ways that follow the law strictly.
Neither she nor the Justice Department responded right away to requests for comment. Meanwhile, the decision means the U.S. Attorney’s Office in New Jersey will continue under new leadership as the legal process moves forward.
Wider impact as courts review similar appointments
The impact of the ruling goes beyond New Jersey. The same method used to keep her in office was also tried in Nevada and Los Angeles, where courts raised similar concerns. In one major case, a judge dismissed charges against James Comey and Letitia James after finding that Lindsey Halligan, who brought the charges, had been unlawfully appointed in the same way.
The 3rd Circuit’s decision is the first from an appeals court to clearly state that this approach violates both the Vacancies Act and the constitutional appointment process. It makes clear that important federal positions cannot be filled through repeated steps meant to avoid Senate approval.
The ruling is now influencing how other courts handle similar disputes and how temporary appointments are reviewed nationwide, marking a significant moment in the debate over how federal roles should be filled.