A federal judge has slammed the gavel on Alina Habba’s tenure as acting U.S. attorney for New Jersey, calling it a blatant dodge of constitutional norms.

According to Fox News, Judge Matthew Brann, an Obama appointee, ruled Thursday that Habba, once President Donald Trump’s personal defense lawyer, has been unlawfully holding the role since her interim term expired. The decision, detailed in a 77-page order, came after two criminal defendants, including Julien Giraud, challenged her appointment as unconstitutional. It’s a sharp rebuke to what many see as creative legal maneuvering by the Trump administration.

Habba was sworn in as interim U.S. attorney on March 28, 2025, in a White House ceremony that raised eyebrows for its optics. Her appointment was meant to be temporary, but when her term lapsed on July 1, the administration didn’t let go. Instead, Trump and Attorney General Pam Bondi leaned on obscure provisions in federal vacancy laws to keep her as “acting” U.S. attorney, a move Brann called out as a misuse of authority.

Trump’s Loophole Tactics Exposed

The Federal Vacancies Reform Act, meant to limit such appointments, was twisted to extend Habba’s role for another 210 days. Brann’s ruling didn’t mince words: “A statutory interpretation that opens a gaping loophole… flies in the face of the goal that Congress was trying to accomplish.” This isn’t just a technicality—it’s a question of whether the rule of law bends for political loyalty.

New Jersey’s federal judges had already signaled discomfort, refusing to extend Habba’s term last month. They appointed career attorney Desiree Grace instead, a move that seemed to prioritize competence over clout. But Trump and Bondi quickly fired Grace, withdrew Habba’s nomination for the permanent role, and reinstated her as acting U.S. attorney, doubling down on their strategy.

Brann’s decision now disqualifies Habba from prosecuting the cases of the two defendants who challenged her. Their argument? An unconstitutional appointment undermines the legitimacy of any legal action she takes. It’s a win for due process, though it leaves a mess for New Jersey’s federal courts to untangle.

Ruling Sparks Broader Questions

The ruling also opens the door for other defendants in New Jersey to challenge Habba’s authority in their cases. If her signatures on court filings are invalid, as Brann ruled, prosecutors may face a cascade of objections. This could grind judicial proceedings to a halt, a headache for an already overburdened system.

“Faced with the question of whether Ms. Habba is lawfully performing the functions… I conclude that she is not,” Brann wrote. His words cut through the administration’s defense like a hot knife, exposing what critics call a pattern of exploiting legal gray areas. Yet, the ruling won’t take effect until the Trump administration gets a chance to appeal, giving them a lifeline to keep Habba in place—for now.

The case landed on Brann’s desk because New Jersey’s federal judges recused themselves, citing conflicts of interest. The chief judge of the Third Circuit, which oversees New Jersey and Pennsylvania, tapped Brann, a Middle District of Pennsylvania judge, to handle it. It’s a rare move, but it underscores the case’s sensitivity and the stakes involved.

Pattern of Controversial Appointments

Trump and Bondi have pulled similar stunts in other blue states like California and New York, where Senate confirmation for their preferred appointees is a tough sell. By sidestepping traditional processes, they’ve kept loyalists in key prosecutor roles, raising hackles among those who value institutional integrity. It’s governance by workaround, and Brann’s ruling suggests the courts are starting to push back.

“The Government’s arguments reaching such a conclusion through vague implication must fail,” Brann wrote, dismantling the administration’s legal rationale. His critique highlights a broader tension: when does flexibility in federal law become manipulation? For conservatives, it’s a reminder that even well-intentioned loyalty to a cause can’t trump constitutional checks.

Habba’s defenders argue she’s a capable attorney caught in a political crossfire. Her role as Trump’s former lawyer made her a lightning rod, but her supporters say she’s being unfairly targeted by a judiciary skeptical of MAGA-aligned figures. Still, Brann’s ruling isn’t about her qualifications—it’s about the process, or lack thereof, that kept her in power.

What’s Next for New Jersey?

The Department of Justice and Habba’s office stayed silent, offering no comment on the ruling. That quiet might signal a scramble to prepare an appeal or a reluctance to engage in a losing PR battle. Either way, it’s a rare moment where the administration’s bold tactics hit a judicial wall.

For New Jersey’s defendants, this ruling is a chance to demand accountability from a system that’s supposed to protect their rights. If Habba’s authority is invalid, every case she’s touched could be questioned, potentially clogging courts with motions and appeals. It’s a legal quagmire that could have been avoided with a straightforward nomination process.

Brann’s decision doesn’t just clip Habba’s wings—it sends a message to the Trump administration: the judiciary won’t rubber-stamp creative loopholes. While the appeal process looms, this ruling strengthens the case for transparent, lawful appointments. For conservatives who champion the rule of law, it’s a bittersweet victory that underscores the need for principle over expediency.