Trump Ally Alina Habba Resigns, Appeals Court Rules Appointment Unlawful

Alina Habba resigned Monday after a federal appeals court panel ruled that her appointment as acting U.S. attorney for the District of New Jersey was unlawful. The 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals concluded the administration violated federal appointment law when it named Habba amid a dispute with New Jersey district judges, and her departure follows a series of rulings that have disqualified several interim U.S. attorneys appointed by the same administration in other districts.

In a post on social media Habba said she was stepping down “to protect the stability and the integrity of the office,” and she announced she would become a senior adviser to Attorney General Pam Bondi with responsibility for overseeing U.S. attorneys nationally. The Justice Department named three lawyers to take over leadership of the New Jersey office while it assesses next steps and indicated it would continue to pursue appeals in related cases.

The court ruling and Habba's resignation underscore the legal and operational tensions created when executive appointments run headlong into questions of statutory authority. The immediate practical effect is uncertainty for prosecutors, defense attorneys, and communities awaiting the resolution of investigations and prosecutions. U.S. attorney offices are responsible for a wide range of matters with direct public health implications, including opioid and other drug prosecutions, health care fraud enforcement, Medicaid and Medicare fraud investigations, and civil rights cases that bear on environmental hazards and access to health care in marginalized communities.

Court challenges to interim appointments can slow the filing of new charges, complicate grand jury work and complicate cooperation with state and local partners. For communities already subject to disparities in public health and legal outcomes, interruptions in federal enforcement can exacerbate harms and erode trust in institutions meant to protect public safety and health.

The pattern of disqualifications has broader policy implications. Legal experts said the appeals court decisions limit the executive branch's flexibility to place political allies in key prosecutorial posts without Senate confirmation, and they may force the Justice Department to rely more heavily on career prosecutors to maintain continuity. The administration's strategy of shifting controversial appointees into advisory roles may test the boundaries of that approach as litigation proceeds.

The Justice Department's announcement of three temporary leaders for the New Jersey office seeks to steady operations, but the unresolved appeals and the ongoing stream of litigation leave open how long the departure of a confirmed U.S. attorney or lawful acting leader might delay work. For advocates and residents in New Jersey, the stakes are not abstract legal doctrine. They involve the pace and priorities of enforcement on issues from pharmaceutical company conduct to environmental pollution and civil rights, matters that most directly affect low income communities and people of color.

As the Justice Department moves to challenge the rulings, the dispute will continue to play out in courts and in public debate over how prosecutorial power is staffed and supervised in a system meant to serve both the rule of law and vulnerable populations.