In a significant setback for the Trump administration, the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a prior ruling that disqualified Alina Habba from serving as the acting U.S. attorney for the District of New Jersey. This 32-page ruling, issued on Monday, found that Habba’s appointment violated the Federal Vacancies Reform Act.
The court’s decision was prompted by a motion from Julien Giraud Jr., a New Jersey resident facing drug trafficking and firearm charges dating back to before Habba’s appointment. Giraud sought to dismiss his indictment, arguing that the appointment of Habba to oversee his case was unlawful. He has pleaded not guilty, and the court chose not to dismiss the charges against him.
Judge Michael Fisher, in his ruling, noted the frustrations of the current administration regarding obstacles to confirming its appointees, highlighting the challenges posed by legal and political barriers.
Earlier in August, U.S. District Judge Matthew W. Brann ruled that Habba’s appointment was “unlawful.” Although the ruling stayed pending the appeal, Judge Brann had expressed concerns over Habba’s interim position, which was limited to 120 days following Trump’s nomination of her to the permanent role in June. The Senate did not advance her nomination, leading to a series of contentious legal maneuvers. Following the nomination, the U.S. District Court of New Jersey appointed her deputy as the new U.S. attorney, prompting Attorney General Pam Bondi to dismiss the deputy and reinstate Habba in a capacity that allowed her to regain her acting role.
This ruling comes on the heels of another decision in which a federal judge dismissed indictments against former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James due to the unlawful appointment of another former Trump lawyer, Lindsey Halligan, to prosecute the cases. Judge Cameron Currie emphasized that Halligan lacked the legal authority to present the indictments due to similar issues surrounding her appointment.
The implications of these rulings could spell deeper challenges for the Trump administration as it navigates legal and appointment complexities. The developments have sparked a conversation about the validity of political appointments and the ramifications of federal law on such designations.