Key Takeaways
- The 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals has upheld a lower court ruling disqualifying Alina Habba from her position as acting U.S. attorney for the District of New Jersey.
- The court found that Habba’s appointment violates the Federal Vacancies Reform Act.
- The decision marks the first time an appellate court has ruled that President Trump cannot usurp statutory and constitutional processes to insert his preferred appointees into positions.
- The ruling is a loss for the Trump administration, which has faced challenges to its appointments in several cases.
- The administration is likely to appeal the decision, as it has done in similar cases.
Introduction to the Case
The Trump administration has suffered a significant setback in its efforts to appoint its preferred candidates to key positions. On Monday, the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a lower court ruling disqualifying Alina Habba from her position as acting U.S. attorney for the District of New Jersey. The ruling, which was written by Judge Michael Fisher, found that Habba’s appointment violates the Federal Vacancies Reform Act. This decision is a major blow to the administration, which has faced challenges to its appointments in several cases.
Background on the Appointment
Habba, a former personal lawyer to President Trump, was appointed as interim U.S. attorney in March, a position that is time-limited to 120 days. However, when Trump nominated her to serve as the permanent attorney in June, the Senate did not take up her nomination. In response, Attorney General Pam Bondi appointed Habba as "Special Attorney to the Attorney General" with all the powers of the U.S. attorney, and then appointed her to the deputy position, which allowed her to become the acting U.S. attorney again. The appeals court found that Bondi cannot delegate all the power of the office to Habba with the special attorney appointment, as this would create a means for the Department of Justice to circumvent the FVRA’s exclusivity provision.
The Court’s Ruling
The 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Habba’s appointment is unlawful and that she should be disqualified from her position. The court found that the administration’s attempts to install Habba as acting U.S. attorney were "frustrated by some of the legal and political barriers" and that the steps taken to appoint her "run afoul of the law." The ruling is a significant victory for the three criminal defendants who challenged Habba’s appointment, arguing that she was unlawfully appointed and that their cases should be dismissed. While the lower court judge declined to dismiss their cases, the appeals court agreed that Habba should be disqualified.
Reaction to the Ruling
Attorneys who challenged Habba’s appointment praised the ruling, saying that it affirms that "Habba is unlawfully and invalidly serving as the chief federal law enforcement officer in New Jersey." The White House referred a request for comment to the Justice Department, which declined to comment. The New Jersey U.S. attorney’s office did not immediately respond to a request for comment. The ruling is likely to have significant implications for the Trump administration, which has faced challenges to its appointments in several cases.
Similar Cases
The appeals court’s decision comes just days after a federal judge dismissed criminal indictments against former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James after finding that acting U.S. Attorney Lindsey Halligan, who was prosecuting the cases, was unlawfully appointed. The administration has said it will appeal that ruling as well. The cases highlight the challenges faced by the Trump administration in appointing its preferred candidates to key positions, and the willingness of the courts to scrutinize these appointments closely.
Conclusion
The ruling by the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals is a significant setback for the Trump administration, which has faced challenges to its appointments in several cases. The decision marks the first time an appellate court has ruled that President Trump cannot usurp statutory and constitutional processes to insert his preferred appointees into positions. The ruling is likely to have significant implications for the administration, and may lead to further challenges to its appointments in the future. As the administration continues to face legal challenges to its appointments, it remains to be seen how it will respond to this latest setback.
