President Donald Trump's former personal lawyer Alina Habba has been disqualified from serving as New Jersey's top federal prosecutor after a US appeals court upheld a lower‑court ruling. The decision, handed down by the 3rd US Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia, represents a significant rebuke of the administration's manoeuvres to keep her in the role despite her interim appointment expiring without Senate confirmation.
The panel of judges, which included appointees from both Republican and Democratic presidents, concluded that Habba's tenure was unlawful. In a 32‑page opinion, the court wrote that while the administration had faced barriers in placing its preferred candidates, 'the citizens of New Jersey and the loyal employees in the US Attorney's Office deserve some clarity and stability'. It affirmed: 'We will affirm the District Court's disqualification order.'
Legal and Political Context
The ruling comes amid broader challenges to Trump's appointment tactics, with similar disputes unfolding in other states. In Nevada, a federal judge disqualified another administration pick, while in Virginia, criminal cases against former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James were dismissed after a judge found the prosecutor who filed charges was unlawfully appointed.
Habba's case originated after several defendants in New Jersey challenged her authority to prosecute them, arguing her 120‑day interim term had expired. A lower‑court judge, Matthew Brann, had already ruled in August that her appointment was based on a 'novel series of legal and personnel moves' and was unlawful. That order suggested her actions since July could be invalidated, though it was stayed pending appeal.
The government argued Habba was validly serving under a statute allowing the first assistant attorney to assume the role. However, the appeals court rejected this interpretation, siding with the lower court's view that federal law imposes clear time limits and power‑sharing rules.
Habba's Tenure and Controversies
Habba, who previously represented Trump in criminal and civil proceedings before his second term, was appointed as interim US attorney in March. She briefly served as a White House adviser before taking the prosecutorial post. Shortly after her appointment, she gave an interview expressing hope to 'turn New Jersey red'—a rare overt political statement for a federal prosecutor.
Her tenure quickly became controversial. She brought a trespassing charge, later dropped, against Democratic Newark Mayor Ras Baraka following his visit to a federal immigration detention centre. She also charged Democratic US Representative LaMonica McIver with assault linked to the same incident, marking an unusual federal case against a sitting member of Congress outside corruption allegations. McIver denied the charges and pleaded not guilty; the case remains pending.
Questions about Habba's continuation in the role intensified in July when her interim appointment ended and New Jersey's Democratic senators, Cory Booker and Andy Kim, declined to support her nomination. Federal judges in the state moved to replace her with a career prosecutor, but Attorney General Pam Bondi dismissed that replacement and reinstated Habba, prompting further legal challenges.
In a 3-0 ruling today, the U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a lower-court decision against the Trump Administration and President Donald J. Trump’s appointment in July of Alina Habba - his previous personal lawyer - as Acting U.S. Attorney for the District of New… pic.twitter.com/vletuVbtnR
— OSINTdefender (@sentdefender) December 1, 2025
Wider Implications
Attorneys for the appellees welcomed the appeals court's decision, stating: 'We will continue to challenge President Trump's unlawful appointments of purported US Attorneys wherever appropriate.' The ruling underscores the judiciary's insistence on adherence to statutory limits, even in politically charged appointments.
The case highlights the tension between executive manoeuvres and judicial oversight in federal appointments. It also raises questions about the validity of actions taken during Habba's tenure, with potential implications for ongoing prosecutions. For now, the appeals court's rebuke signals that attempts to bypass Senate confirmation and statutory limits will face firm resistance.
