Appeals Court Disqualifies Alina Habba as US Attorney for New Jersey

A recent ruling by a federal appeals court has significant repercussions for Alina Habba, a former attorney for President Donald Trump. The 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals disqualified Habba from serving as the U.S. attorney for New Jersey. This decision upheld a lower court’s finding that her appointment contravened the Federal Vacancies Reform Act (FVRA).

Background of the Case

Trump nominated Habba to the position; however, the Senate did not confirm her. After her nomination was rejected, the administration attempted a series of legal maneuvers to install her in the role of U.S. attorney. A district court judge characterized these actions as a “novel series of legal and personnel moves.”

Court’s Ruling

The appeals court ruled that Habba could not serve as the Acting U.S. Attorney for New Jersey. According to the court, “only the first assistant in place at the time the vacancy arises automatically assumes the functions and duties” as per the FVRA.

The ruling specifically stated:

• Habba’s prior nomination for the U.S. attorney role bars her from taking the acting position.
• The Attorney General’s attempt to delegate powers to Habba was not permitted under the FVRA’s exclusivity provision.

Implications of the Ruling

This decision has broader implications, representing the first time a federal appeals court has challenged efforts by the Trump administration to keep interim U.S. attorneys in office after temporary appointments expire. It raises concerns for numerous federal prosecutors who may have been appointed through similar means.

Following the expiration of Habba’s interim appointment, the Trump administration reassigned her to First Assistant U.S. Attorney. This maneuver allowed her to effectively resume leadership once her original nomination was withdrawn.

Context of the Decision

This unanimous 3-0 decision highlights potential legal vulnerabilities for similar appointments nationwide. The three-judge panel included two judges appointed by George W. Bush and one by Joe Biden. This backdrop suggests a bipartisan acknowledgment of the ruling’s significance.

The case follows a recent high-profile ruling disqualifying another of Trump’s nominees, Lindsey Halligan, who faced scrutiny as a prosecutor for criminal cases against public figures such as former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James.

The court’s decision reinforces the boundaries set by the FVRA and underscores the challenges facing political appointees in federal positions. As such, it provides a crucial precedent in understanding the appointment and functioning of U.S. attorneys across the nation.