Legal Debate Over Alina Habba’s Appointment as U.S. Attorney

A panel of three judges at the U.S. Court of Appeals in Philadelphia recently examined whether Alina Habba’s role as the U.S. Attorney for the District of New Jersey is valid. The Trump administration is backing her appointment, claiming it’s entirely in line with federal laws.

On Monday, the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals hosted a session lasting around 90 minutes, where both sides scrutinized the arguments made by Department of Justice (DOJ) officials regarding Habba’s appointment.

Some defendants facing charges from Habba’s office have raised objections, arguing that she was “not lawfully appointed.” Meanwhile, DOJ representatives maintain that her appointment process—from being interim U.S. Attorney to her later roles—adhered to the Federal Vacancies Reform Act (FVRA).

“Would you concede that there are serious constitutional implications to your theory, or the Government’s theory, which really is a complete circumvention it seems of the Appointments Clause?” queried Judge D. Brooks Smith.

A DOJ attorney replied, “I do disagree with that, Judge Smith. The office of the United States attorney is an inferior office not requiring Senate confirmation. Ms. Habba was appointed by the attorney general, so any Appointments Clause problem has been fully satisfied by her AG appointment.”

Habba began her career as the interim U.S. Attorney for New Jersey, serving until her 120-day term concluded. Following her departure from that role, she was reappointed as a special attorney in the DOJ, designated as the first assistant U.S. Attorney, and subsequently obtained full authority of the office. This series of appointments effectively allowed her to continue as the top federal prosecutor in New Jersey.