Trump’s U.S. Attorney Appointment Rejected by Appeals Court
In a significant setback for President Donald Trump’s efforts to install loyal allies in key legal positions, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit unanimously ruled that Alina Habba is unlawfully serving as the top federal prosecutor in New Jersey. The 3-0 decision upholds a lower court’s ruling to disqualify Habba, who previously served as Trump’s personal defense lawyer before her controversial appointment. This case represents the first major judicial rejection of Trump’s strategy to place his preferred nominees in U.S. attorneys’ offices in Democratic-leaning states while bypassing traditional Senate confirmation processes.
The appointment controversy centers on what critics describe as the Trump administration’s exploitation of loopholes in federal vacancy laws. According to court proceedings, after Habba’s initial temporary appointment expired, the administration employed what Department of Justice lawyer Henry Whitaker defended as “overlapping mechanisms” to keep her in office. However, the appellate judges, including two Bush appointees and one Obama appointee, expressed deep skepticism about this approach during oral arguments. One judge directly questioned whether the government’s theory represented “a complete circumvention” of the Constitution’s Appointments Clause, which requires Senate confirmation for principal officers. The challenge to Habba’s authority came from defendants facing federal charges who argued she lacked legitimate prosecutorial power.
The case highlights broader tensions between the Trump administration and the Senate confirmation process for U.S. attorneys in states with Democratic senators. Traditionally, home-state senators have significant influence over such appointments through the “blue slip” tradition, which essentially gives them veto power over nominees. New Jersey Senators Cory Booker and Andy Kim did not approve Habba through this process, effectively blocking her path to Senate confirmation. This standoff is part of a larger conflict as Trump has expressed frustration with Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley’s commitment to preserving the blue slip custom, creating what appears to be an insurmountable obstacle for his preferred nominees in Democratic-leaning states.
Habba’s case is the most advanced in a series of similar legal challenges to Trump’s U.S. attorney appointments. Others facing similar scrutiny include Lindsey Halligan in Virginia and Bill Essayli in California, who were also appointed through controversial interim mechanisms. The ruling could have far-reaching implications for these other appointments and potentially disrupt ongoing federal prosecutions in affected districts. The legal challenge to Habba’s appointment was argued by veteran Washington lawyer Abbe Lowell, who has been involved in multiple lawsuits challenging various Trump administration actions. The defendants who brought the challenge maintained that Habba should not be permitted to prosecute them because she was not validly appointed to her position.
The Trump administration now faces difficult choices regarding how to respond to this legal defeat. Options include requesting a full panel review by the Third Circuit or appealing directly to the Supreme Court. However, this ruling suggests courts are skeptical of the administration’s approach to circumventing the traditional appointment process. The president’s recent firing of former U.S. Attorney Erik Siebert, reportedly because Siebert had earned Democratic senators’ approval, further illustrates the administration’s stance that securing such bipartisan support could be viewed as disqualifying—creating what appears to be an intentional impasse with the Senate over blue-state nominations.
This case reflects a fundamental tension between presidential appointment power and the Senate’s constitutional role in confirming senior government officials. The Third Circuit’s decision signals that courts may serve as a meaningful check on executive attempts to work around established confirmation processes, even when those processes are based partly on Senate traditions rather than explicit legal requirements. As this legal battle continues to unfold, it raises important questions about the balance of powers in federal appointments and the limits of presidential authority in staffing key Justice Department positions. The ultimate resolution could significantly impact federal law enforcement leadership and prosecutorial priorities in multiple states across the country.
