by Just the News
The rulings have drawn all three branches of government into the debate about who ultimately controls the selection those holding top positions in U.S. Attorney offices.
Federal judges across the country have repeatedly invalidated or
questioned the legality of President Donald Trump’s appointment of U.S.
Attorneys, sparking debate about who ultimately controls the selection
of federal prosecutors.
Critics of the rulings contend they reflect a growing willingness by
federal judges to intervene in the executive branch’s internal staffing
decisions – interventions that can effectively halt or derail key
initiatives of a presidential administration.
Supporters argue that courts are simply enforcing the Constitution’s
structural limits on federal power and protecting the Senate’s role in
confirming senior executive officials – in a conflict that has drawn in
all three branches of government.
By invalidating the authority of the prosecutors who brought those
cases, courts have done more than resolve technical questions of
appointment law – they have also reshaped the administration’s ability
to carry out its law-enforcement agenda.
Alina Habba
In March of last year, President Trump announced that Alina Habba,
one of his former personal attorneys and a legal adviser to his
presidential campaign, would serve as interim U.S. Attorney for the
District of New Jersey.
That same month, Attorney General Pamela Bondi swore Habba into the
position pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 546(a), which allows the attorney
general to appoint a U.S. attorney when a vacancy exists in the office.
But interim appointments under the statute are limited in duration.
Under 28 U.S.C. § 546(c), an interim U.S. attorney may serve only until
the earlier of Senate confirmation of a presidential nominee or 120
days.
In June 2025, about a month before that deadline expired, President
Trump formally nominated Habba to serve as U.S. attorney for the
District of New Jersey.
When the 120-day period elapsed without Senate confirmation, however,
the administration attempted to keep Habba in charge of the office by
withdrawing her nomination and appointing her instead as a “Special
Attorney.”
The maneuver was challenged in federal court by defendants in two
criminal cases: Julien Giraud Jr. and Julien Giraud II, who were charged
in a federal drug case, and Cesar Humberto Pina, who faced fraud and
money-laundering charges.
Although the litigation originated in the District of New Jersey, the
matter was reassigned to U.S. District Judge Matthew Brann of the
Middle District of Pennsylvania, an Obama appointee, to avoid potential
conflicts within the New Jersey bench.
Late last year, Brann ruled that Habba’s continued service exceeded
the statutory 120-day limit and violated federal law governing interim
appointments.
After judges in the district designated another official to serve as
acting U.S. attorney, the Justice Department attempted to reinstall
Habba in the role – an effort Brann again deemed unlawful. Habba
ultimately resigned in late-2025 after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Third Circuit affirmed Brann’s decision.
Trump has targeted his ire over the matter on fellow Republicans who
control the Senate, chastising them after Habba resigned for allowing
the continuation of the chamber's "blue slip" tradition, which lets
home-state senators veto presidential nominees to District Courts and
U.S. Attorney offices.
“The Republicans should be ashamed of themselves,” he said. “Because I
can’t appoint a U.S. attorney that’s not a Democrat, because they put a
block on it.”
Habba’s Replacements
Following the Habba ruling, Attorney General Bondi installed three
Justice Department lawyers – Philip Lamparello, Jordan Fox, and Ari
Fontecchio – to oversee the office.
In a sharply worded opinion issued las week, Judge Brann ruled for a
second time that the leadership of the U.S. Attorney’s Office in New
Jersey is serving unlawfully, holding that the trio appointed by Bondi
also lacks constitutional and statutory authority to run the office.
Brann rejected the government’s argument that the lawyers could exercise
the powers of a U.S. attorney without Senate confirmation.
Brann stayed his decision to allow the Trump administration to
appeal. But he included a pointed warning: “If the Government chooses to
leave the triumvirate in place, it does so at its own risk.”
Any further attempts to prosecute under unauthorized leadership in
the office, Brann warned, could result in the dismissal of pending
criminal cases.
The opinion conveyed clear frustration with the administration’s
approach to federal appointments. “One year into this administration, it
is plain that President Trump and his top aides have chafed at the
limits of their power set forth by the law and the Constitution,” Brann
wrote.
Habba, who was named a senior adviser to Bondi after leaving the New Jersey post last year, sharply criticized
the ruling on X. “Another ridiculous ruling from Judge Brann,” she
said. “Judges do not fire DOJ officials, AG Pam Bondi and POTUS do - get
in line.”
Lindsay Halligan
The controversy over the president’s nominees has not been limited to New Jersey.
In September of last year, President Trump nominated Lindsay Halligan
to serve as U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia. At the
same time, the attorney general issued an order designating Halligan as
interim U.S. attorney while the position remained vacant pending Senate
confirmation.
Halligan had previously served as a special assistant to the
president and as a senior associate staff secretary in the White House.
Within days of assuming the interim role, Halligan appeared before a
federal grand jury and secured a two-count indictment against former FBI
Director James Comey, alleging that he made false statements to
Congress and obstructed a congressional proceeding during testimony
before the Senate Judiciary Committee in 2020. The testimony was related
to Comey's oversight of the FBI's investigation into possible ties
between Russia and 2016 Trump presidential campaign.
Halligan also obtained an indictment charging New York Attorney
General Letitia James with bank fraud and making false statements to a
financial institution. In 2022, James, a Democrat, filed a civil suit
against Trump and his company for inflating the value of some of their
properties. The financial penalty was later thrown out on appeal.
Comey and James moved to dismiss their indictments, arguing that
Halligan’s appointment violated the Appointments Clause of the U.S.
Constitution and federal statutes governing U.S. attorney vacancies.
In a pair of rulings issued last November, U.S. District Judge Cameron Currie, a Clinton appointee, agreed.
Currie held that Halligan’s designation as interim U.S. attorney
violated both the Appointments Clause and federal law regulating
temporary appointments. Because Halligan lacked lawful authority to act
as the district’s chief federal prosecutor, the court dismissed the
criminal cases against both Comey and James.
Halligan stepped down from the interim position shortly after the rulings were issued.
Are judges stopping President Trump’s agenda?
The judicial decisions also carry significant practical consequences
for the Trump administration. Several of the affected prosecutions
involve political adversaries or other high-profile figures whom Trump
has publicly pledged to investigate and, where appropriate, charge.
By invalidating the authority of the prosecutors who brought those
cases, courts have done more than resolve technical questions of
appointment law – they have also reshaped the administration’s ability
to carry out its law-enforcement agenda.
Just the News
Source: https://justthenews.com/government/courts-law/judges
Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter
