Court Ousts Trump Loyalist Habba in Shocking Prosecutor Power Play

Paul Riverbank, 12/2/2025A federal court ousted Alina Habba as New Jersey’s top federal prosecutor, ruling her appointment violated law and spotlighting tensions between appointment traditions, executive power, and Senate oversight. The decision could redefine how US Attorneys are installed in politically divided states.

The roots of the dispute reach back to last spring. Habba, known both for her legal work and her ties to former President Donald Trump, found herself catapulted into the spotlight when the Trump White House installed her as US Attorney in New Jersey, apparently circumventing traditional confirmation protocols. Her predecessor’s term ended just as New Jersey’s Democratic senators, Cory Booker and Andy Kim, hesitated—some might say flatly refused—to endorse her for a permanent role. The tension, as insiders quickly pointed out, had a lot to do with the time-honored “blue slip” custom, which gives home-state senators significant leverage over federal appointments.

In theory, there are established steps for filling such vacancies. Federal law lays out who should assume the duties, how long a temporary appointment lasts, and what happens when that window closes. By midsummer, judges—acting inside the law’s letter—put a career prosecutor in charge. Yet, that arrangement didn’t sit well with the Trump administration, who promptly dismissed the interim pick and maneuvered Habba into the “First Assistant” slot, apparently to activate a separate legal path for her ascension.

But the court, led by a trio of jurists coming from both sides of the aisle, was unpersuaded. Their opinion called out what it saw as an elaborate reshuffling meant to sidestep the Federal Vacancies Reform Act (FVRA). “Habba is not the Acting U.S. Attorney,” the order read, taking pains to specify that only the official first assistant on duty at the time of the vacancy has the right to step up. By the court’s reading, once Habba was put forward as a permanent nominee, she lost eligibility for the acting post—a crucial point that undid the administration’s workaround.

Legal consequences are rippling outward. Already, some New Jersey defendants—notably those facing federal prosecution—are challenging whether Habba’s office ever had legitimate authority in the first place. Their claims are gaining traction, and lawyers expect a new wave of appeals that could force courts to reexamine cases she handled.

This isn’t an isolated development, not by a long stretch. Just days before, a federal judge in Virginia tossed out criminal charges, citing similar defects in that US Attorney’s installation. All of this forms a wider pattern: Trump-era appointments in Democratic-leaning states are facing heightened scrutiny, as local senators and the executive branch spar for control.

Habba offered a response after her initial court setback, framing her struggle as emblematic of a broader fight for fair hearings in the Senate. The court, for its part, remained resolutely focused on process, not politics, laying out—in unusually direct terms—that the administration’s approach created “serious constitutional implications.”

What happens next is murky. The Justice Department may seek review by a broader panel or try to take the issue to the Supreme Court. Either way, this ruling could alter the landscape for US Attorney appointments nationwide, especially in states where political divisions run deep. For now, though, New Jersey’s top federal prosecutor will not be answering to the name Alina Habba, and challenges to her erstwhile authority seem unlikely to fade quietly.

Decisions about the people entrusted with enforcing federal law, the court underlined, must follow the established script—not just the wishes of those in power. In the end, the very procedures drawn to protect the integrity of these posts are back in the spotlight, reminding us all just how much the fine print matters.

In a decision that’s already stirring debate across political lines, a federal appeals court in Philadelphia stripped Alina Habba of her high-profile post as New Jersey’s chief federal prosecutor—a move that traces back to a pitched battle over how she wound up with the job in the first place. The opinion, handed down by the 3rd US Circuit Court of Appeals, left little room for misinterpretation. Judges pointed at what they described as an “improper circumvention” of the rules that are supposed to guide appointments for such critical offices.The roots of the dispute reach back to last spring. Habba, known both for her legal work and her ties to former President Donald Trump, found herself catapulted into the spotlight when the Trump White House installed her as US Attorney in New Jersey, apparently circumventing traditional confirmation protocols. Her predecessor’s term ended just as New Jersey’s Democratic senators, Cory Booker and Andy Kim, hesitated—some might say flatly refused—to endorse her for a permanent role. The tension, as insiders quickly pointed out, had a lot to do with the time-honored “blue slip” custom, which gives home-state senators significant leverage over federal appointments.In theory, there are established steps for filling such vacancies. Federal law lays out who should assume the duties, how long a temporary appointment lasts, and what happens when that window closes. By midsummer, judges—acting inside the law’s letter—put a career prosecutor in charge. Yet, that arrangement didn’t sit well with the Trump administration, who promptly dismissed the interim pick and maneuvered Habba into the “First Assistant” slot, apparently to activate a separate legal path for her ascension.But the court, led by a trio of jurists coming from both sides of the aisle, was unpersuaded. Their opinion called out what it saw as an elaborate reshuffling meant to sidestep the Federal Vacancies Reform Act (FVRA). “Habba is not the Acting U.S. Attorney,” the order read, taking pains to specify that only the official first assistant on duty at the time of the vacancy has the right to step up. By the court’s reading, once Habba was put forward as a permanent nominee, she lost eligibility for the acting post—a crucial point that undid the administration’s workaround.Legal consequences are rippling outward. Already, some New Jersey defendants—notably those facing federal prosecution—are challenging whether Habba’s office ever had legitimate authority in the first place. Their claims are gaining traction, and lawyers expect a new wave of appeals that could force courts to reexamine cases she handled.This isn’t an isolated development, not by a long stretch. Just days before, a federal judge in Virginia tossed out criminal charges, citing similar defects in that US Attorney’s installation. All of this forms a wider pattern: Trump-era appointments in Democratic-leaning states are facing heightened scrutiny, as local senators and the executive branch spar for control.Habba offered a response after her initial court setback, framing her struggle as emblematic of a broader fight for fair hearings in the Senate. The court, for its part, remained resolutely focused on process, not politics, laying out—in unusually direct terms—that the administration’s approach created “serious constitutional implications.”What happens next is murky. The Justice Department may seek review by a broader panel or try to take the issue to the Supreme Court. Either way, this ruling could alter the landscape for US Attorney appointments nationwide, especially in states where political divisions run deep. For now, though, New Jersey’s top federal prosecutor will not be answering to the name Alina Habba, and challenges to her erstwhile authority seem unlikely to fade quietly.Decisions about the people entrusted with enforcing federal law, the court underlined, must follow the established script—not just the wishes of those in power. In the end, the very procedures drawn to protect the integrity of these posts are back in the spotlight, reminding us all just how much the fine print matters.