Alina Habba, the nominee selected by President Donald Trump to lead the U.S. Attorney’s Office in New Jersey, has been declared disqualified from holding that position in any capacity, according to a ruling issued by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. This decision represents another setback for the former administration’s attempts to appoint its preferred candidates to significant law enforcement roles.
In a unanimous 32-page opinion, the three-judge panel upheld a previous ruling from August 21 which concluded that Habba had unlawfully been serving as the acting U.S. Attorney for the District of New Jersey. Circuit Judge D. Michael Fisher emphasized in the appellate ruling that the current administration has faced considerable legal and political hurdles in its appointment process. He stated that “the citizens of New Jersey and the loyal employees in the U.S. Attorney’s Office deserve some clarity and stability.”
The judges, who included nominees from both Republican and Democratic administrations, identified that Habba’s appointment did not comply with the Federal Vacancies Reform Act (FVRA), which regulates the filling of vacant government positions temporarily. Attorney General Pam Bondi had initially appointed Habba as Interim U.S. Attorney after the prior appointee’s abrupt resignation. Although Trump formally nominated her in June, she bypassed Senate confirmation—a necessary step that often prolongs the appointment process.
The circumstances surrounding Habba’s continued role as acting U.S. attorney raised questions as the FVRA permits such interim appointees to serve only for a finite period. As that timeframe approached, the Trump administration enacted several measures to prolong her tenure, including dismissing Desiree Grace, who was set to take over the interim role and withdrawing Habba’s nomination. Bondi’s subsequent appointments aimed to elevate Habba’s position and extend her term, but ultimately did not satisfy the legal requirements outlined in the FVRA.
This ruling marks a significant moment in the ongoing challenges surrounding political appointments in federal law enforcement and underscores the necessity for adherence to established legal frameworks. As developments unfold, it remains crucial for the public and stakeholders to observe how these legal determinations influence the appointment processes within the Justice Department.