A federal judge has ruled that the three officials currently leading the United States Attorney’s Office in New Jersey are serving without lawful authority. The decision criticizes the administration’s method of appointing leadership without following the usual Senate confirmation process.
A federal judge has ruled that the three officials currently leading the United States Attorney’s Office in New Jersey are serving without lawful authority. The decision criticizes the administration’s method of appointing leadership without following the usual Senate confirmation process.
Alina Saad Habba is an American attorney and political adviser born on March 25, 1984. She was named acting United States attorney for the District of New Jersey in July 2025 after previously holding the post in an interim role beginning in March 2025.
Her appointment in July was later declared unlawful in August 2025. That ruling was upheld by an appeals court in December 2025. Habba announced her resignation from the role on December 8, 2025.
In a decision issued Monday, U.S. District Judge Matthew Brann said the government wrongly claimed that Congress had given Attorney General Pam Bondi the authority to bypass Senate confirmation and directly appoint U.S. attorneys.
According to the judge, the law makes it clear that the government cannot act alone to fill the position. He wrote that the administration’s intention to appoint leadership without the usual process was “crystal clear and not capable of factual dispute.”
Judge Brann had earlier ruled that Habba could no longer serve as New Jersey’s top federal prosecutor once her 120-day interim term ended. The administration attempted several legal and staffing changes to keep her in the role after that period expired.
The judge said the office’s work was too important to be subject to repeated experimental leadership arrangements. He urged the government to work within the system and seek compromise.
Brann also warned that another attempt to fill the role without proper authority could lead to strict judicial review. If such an attempt showed bad faith, he said it could even result in criminal cases being dismissed.
Although the judge ordered the removal of the three officials, he paused the decision while an appeal is considered. Because of the unusual legal questions involved, the court allowed time for further review.
However, he warned that the administration would be taking a risk if it kept the three officials in their positions during the appeal.
After Habba stepped down in December, Attorney General Bondi divided her responsibilities among three officials:
Judge Brann referred to them collectively as a “triumvirate.” Habba had also indicated in court filings that she would return to lead the office if a higher court eventually ruled in her favor.
In a post on the social media platform X, Habba criticised the decision. She described it as another unreasonable ruling and said the administration would continue pursuing its agenda.
She argued that judges were attempting to block actions supported by voters and claimed the ruling interfered with executive branch authority. Habba added that only the attorney general and the president have the power to remove Justice Department officials.
