Judges Slam Trump’s Prosecutor Pick: NJ Power Struggle Explodes

Paul Riverbank, 12/2/2025Trump’s NJ prosecutor pick ousted as courts rebuke political maneuvering and demand rule of law.

For months, Habba’s appointment had sparked friction—inside the U.S. Attorney’s Office and well beyond it. She’d moved from President Donald Trump’s personal legal team to a White House counsel role, then into New Jersey’s top federal prosecutor seat with surprising speed. Almost immediately, her declared ambition to “turn New Jersey red” jolted the normally discreet world of federal law enforcement. Prosecutors customarily cloak their politics, but Habba, by contrast, made no secret of her intentions.

That posture did little to ease a string of controversies that soon followed. Within weeks, Habba’s office filed charges against high-profile Democrats—Newark Mayor Ras Baraka, among them. Yet when the charges against Baraka were later dropped, and the pursuit of Rep. LaMonica McIver continued through the courts, questions about the motivations behind these cases took on new urgency.

Beneath the headlines, a procedural battle had been simmering. Federal law in New Jersey—mirrored in many states—sets a strict 120-day limit on interim U.S. attorney appointments unless the Senate weighs in, which, in Habba’s case, it never did. When her clock ran out, rather than stepping aside, the Trump administration maneuvered her back into the role—first by shifting around deputies, then reappointing her. Judges in Trenton watched the back-and-forth, at one point intervening to name Habba’s deputy as acting head, only to see that decision reversed by the administration. These rapid-fire switches stirred unrest among veteran staff and reignited old debates about separation of powers.

It wasn’t long before defendants in pending federal cases challenged the legitimacy of her authority to prosecute. In August, Judge Matthew Brann described Habba’s continuation in the post as “a novel series of legal and personnel moves.” He struck down her appointment, warning that actions taken after her term could unravel. Still, he let the situation sit while appeals crept higher.

Late last week, the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals delivered the final word. With a bipartisan panel (two Bush appointees, one from Obama), the court sided with the lower ruling: the administration had stretched the law beyond breaking. “The citizens of New Jersey and the loyal employees in the U.S. Attorney’s Office deserve some clarity and stability,” the panel wrote, a rebuke that sounded as much like a plea for tranquility as a legal argument.

Habba, never one to exit quietly, took to social media to decry the outcome and promised future legal fights over what she termed “unlawful appointments.” Her attorneys vowed to keep challenging similar scenarios wherever they arose.

New Jersey is hardly the only state wrestling with these kinds of disputes. Only days before this decision, a similar ruling threw out charges filed by yet another interim federal prosecutor down in Virginia, raising fresh questions about how swiftly and flexibly the Justice Department can fill its most sensitive posts. Appeals in those cases are already pending.

All of this—for the casual observer—might appear as little more than inside baseball. But who commands the Justice Department’s regional fiefdoms matters deeply: these offices are arbiters of everything from corruption probes to sweeping financial indictments, affecting how public trust and accountability are defined.

Looking back at the New Jersey case, what stands out is not only the spirited maneuvering by the Trump team, but the courts’ insistence—clear, unhurried, almost old-fashioned—that appointment rules, even for powerful posts, are not subject to executive whim. With this latest ruling, at least for now, a boundary has been reinforced: even the presidency cannot rewrite the statutes designed to balance power at the nation’s legal helm.

It was a Wednesday morning in Newark when the news arrived, confirming what had already been swirling through the legal corridors: Alina Habba would be stepping down as New Jersey’s acting U.S. attorney, ending a tenure defined by turbulence and legal wrangling more than any demonstration of quiet authority.For months, Habba’s appointment had sparked friction—inside the U.S. Attorney’s Office and well beyond it. She’d moved from President Donald Trump’s personal legal team to a White House counsel role, then into New Jersey’s top federal prosecutor seat with surprising speed. Almost immediately, her declared ambition to “turn New Jersey red” jolted the normally discreet world of federal law enforcement. Prosecutors customarily cloak their politics, but Habba, by contrast, made no secret of her intentions.That posture did little to ease a string of controversies that soon followed. Within weeks, Habba’s office filed charges against high-profile Democrats—Newark Mayor Ras Baraka, among them. Yet when the charges against Baraka were later dropped, and the pursuit of Rep. LaMonica McIver continued through the courts, questions about the motivations behind these cases took on new urgency.Beneath the headlines, a procedural battle had been simmering. Federal law in New Jersey—mirrored in many states—sets a strict 120-day limit on interim U.S. attorney appointments unless the Senate weighs in, which, in Habba’s case, it never did. When her clock ran out, rather than stepping aside, the Trump administration maneuvered her back into the role—first by shifting around deputies, then reappointing her. Judges in Trenton watched the back-and-forth, at one point intervening to name Habba’s deputy as acting head, only to see that decision reversed by the administration. These rapid-fire switches stirred unrest among veteran staff and reignited old debates about separation of powers.It wasn’t long before defendants in pending federal cases challenged the legitimacy of her authority to prosecute. In August, Judge Matthew Brann described Habba’s continuation in the post as “a novel series of legal and personnel moves.” He struck down her appointment, warning that actions taken after her term could unravel. Still, he let the situation sit while appeals crept higher.Late last week, the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals delivered the final word. With a bipartisan panel (two Bush appointees, one from Obama), the court sided with the lower ruling: the administration had stretched the law beyond breaking. “The citizens of New Jersey and the loyal employees in the U.S. Attorney’s Office deserve some clarity and stability,” the panel wrote, a rebuke that sounded as much like a plea for tranquility as a legal argument.Habba, never one to exit quietly, took to social media to decry the outcome and promised future legal fights over what she termed “unlawful appointments.” Her attorneys vowed to keep challenging similar scenarios wherever they arose.New Jersey is hardly the only state wrestling with these kinds of disputes. Only days before this decision, a similar ruling threw out charges filed by yet another interim federal prosecutor down in Virginia, raising fresh questions about how swiftly and flexibly the Justice Department can fill its most sensitive posts. Appeals in those cases are already pending.All of this—for the casual observer—might appear as little more than inside baseball. But who commands the Justice Department’s regional fiefdoms matters deeply: these offices are arbiters of everything from corruption probes to sweeping financial indictments, affecting how public trust and accountability are defined.Looking back at the New Jersey case, what stands out is not only the spirited maneuvering by the Trump team, but the courts’ insistence—clear, unhurried, almost old-fashioned—that appointment rules, even for powerful posts, are not subject to executive whim. With this latest ruling, at least for now, a boundary has been reinforced: even the presidency cannot rewrite the statutes designed to balance power at the nation’s legal helm.