Judge Denies Top Trump Ally
A federal appeals court has declined to revisit a ruling that removed Alina Habba from her position as U.S. attorney for New Jersey, delivering another legal setback to President Trump’s Justice Department—and potentially setting the stage for a high-profile Supreme Court battle over executive authority.
In a brief order issued Monday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit confirmed it would not reconsider a prior decision by a three-judge panel that ruled Habba’s appointment was unlawful under federal statute. A majority of the court’s judges voted against rehearing the case before the full court, leaving the original ruling intact.
Only three judges supported rehearing the matter, and one is expected to issue a written dissent at a later date. Judge Emil Bove—another former Trump attorney who now serves on the federal bench—did not participate in the vote.
Court Rejects Administration’s Appointment Strategy
The decision reinforces the panel’s conclusion that Habba’s authority expired after her 120-day interim term ended. Judges acknowledged that the Trump administration pursued an unusual sequence of legal and personnel actions to keep her in place, but ruled that those efforts conflicted with the plain language of federal law.
As a result, Habba remains barred—at least for now—from leading New Jersey’s federal prosecuting office. At the same time, the ruling may accelerate a broader constitutional clash that could ultimately land before the Supreme Court of the United States.
Justice Department Signals Supreme Court Appeal
Habba resigned from the role last month following the panel’s decision but submitted a sworn declaration stating she intends to return if a higher court rules in her favor.
Earlier this month, the Justice Department urged the appeals court to reconsider, arguing that the panel imposed overly rigid and “atextual” limits on acting U.S. attorneys—an issue the department described as one of “exceptional importance” to the executive branch.
That argument failed to gain traction with the court.
How the Dispute Began
The controversy dates back to July, when Habba’s interim term expired. Federal judges in New Jersey declined to extend her tenure and instead invoked a rarely used provision allowing them to appoint her first assistant as U.S. attorney.
Attorney General Pam Bondi responded by removing the judges’ chosen successor. President Trump then withdrew Habba’s formal nomination, after which she was designated acting U.S. attorney and continued exercising the powers of the office.
The appeals court ruled that this maneuver violated the statute governing temporary U.S. attorney appointments.
Writing for the unanimous panel, Judge D. Michael Fisher—appointed by President George W. Bush—acknowledged the administration’s frustration with political and legal barriers. Still, he emphasized that the law draws a clear distinction between the period before and after a presidential nomination is submitted.
Once a nomination has been made, Fisher wrote, withdrawing it later does not erase the legal consequences of having submitted it.
Wider Impact Across the Country
Habba was the first Trump-aligned U.S. attorney removed under this interpretation of the law. Since then, similar rulings have affected prosecutors in California’s Los Angeles district, Nevada, Northern New York, and Eastern Virginia.
The ripple effects have been significant.
After Habba stepped aside, leadership duties in New Jersey were divided among three prosecutors. In Delaware, a Republican Party chair-turned-U.S. attorney resigned, citing the Third Circuit’s decision as the reason.
In Virginia, Lindsey Halligan resigned last week and was barred by a federal judge from representing herself as U.S. attorney unless she is lawfully confirmed by the Senate or appointed by the court.
That decision resulted in federal judges throwing out criminal cases involving former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James, both longtime adversaries of President Trump.
What Comes Next
With the appeals court declining to intervene, pressure is now mounting on the Justice Department to seek Supreme Court review. Such a case would have sweeping implications for presidential appointment powers, judicial authority, and the future of Trump-aligned prosecutors nationwide.
For supporters of the administration, the case has become another flashpoint in the ongoing struggle between the executive branch and an increasingly assertive federal judiciary—one that could shape the balance of power for years to come.
