Judge Rejects NJ US Attorney Leadership Structure for Second Time

A federal judge has once again disqualified the leadership of the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Novel Jersey, ruling that the current structure is unconstitutional. This marks the second time in less than a year that U.S. District Judge Matthew Brann has found the top leaders of the Justice Department outpost were serving unlawfully.

Background: Habba’s Initial Disqualification

Judge Brann initially ruled last summer that Alina Habba, President Trump’s former personal lawyer, was illegally appointed as acting U.S. Attorney for the District of New Jersey. A federal appeals court later backed Brann’s ruling, leading to Habba’s departure from the office in December.

The Trio and the Judge’s Ruling

Following Habba’s exit, Attorney General Pam Bondi appointed Philip Lamparello, Jordan Fox and Ari Fontecchio to share the responsibilities of the U.S. Attorney role. However, Judge Brann determined that this three-person leadership team was also unconstitutionally appointed. He found that splitting the power of the office exceeded Bondi’s authority and violated the Appointments Clause of the Constitution. The judge warned that further unlawful attempts to fill the office could result in the dismissal of pending cases.

Constitutional Concerns and Executive Overreach

In a 130-page opinion, Judge Brann expressed concern over what he perceived as an attempt by the Trump administration to circumvent legal limitations on executive power. He wrote that the administration frequently seeks to discover “enormous grants of executive power hidden in the vagaries and silences of the code.” Brann criticized the government’s argument that the Attorney General could appoint anyone to any subordinate position within the Department of Justice and delegate authority without going through the standard nomination and Senate confirmation process. He stated the government’s actions demonstrated a preference for controlling the USAO-NJ regardless of whether it was functioning properly.

Potential Consequences and Broader Implications

The judge cautioned that the lack of a legally proper U.S. Attorney appointment could lead to the dismissal of cases or the reversal of convictions involving “scores of dangerous criminals.” He also warned that similar issues could arise in other Justice Department offices facing vacancies, potentially invalidating criminal charges brought by illegally appointed prosecutors.

Similar Rulings in Other States

New Jersey is one of at least five states – including New York, Virginia, California, and Nevada – where federal judges have ruled that Trump administration-appointed temporary U.S. Attorneys were serving unlawfully. These rulings often center on the administration’s efforts to retain interim U.S. Attorneys beyond the 120-day limit set by federal law.

Reactions and Next Steps

Alina Habba, now a senior advisor at the Justice Department, dismissed the ruling as “ridiculous” on X, stating that judges would “rather have no U.S. Attorney than safety for the people of NJ.” The Justice Department has not yet issued a comment. The implementation of Judge Brann’s order is stayed pending appeal.