Judge Rules Trump Appointment of Acting U.S. Attorney Unlawful

A federal judge has ruled that the appointment process for the acting U.S. Attorney for New Jersey was unlawful, ordering that the individual not participate in any pending criminal cases in the office. The ruling comes after the Trump administration's appointment of the acting U.S. Attorney, who was previously a private attorney, was challenged in court. The judge's decision underscores the ongoing legal battles surrounding the Trump administration's appointments and the scrutiny they face from the judiciary.

Matthew Brann, the federal judge, stated that the government's appointment of the acting U.S. Attorney through a series of novel legal and personnel changes lacked legal authority. "The court finds that since July 1, 2025, Ms. Habba has been exercising the functions and duties of the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of New Jersey without lawful authority," Brann wrote in the ruling. "All of her actions since then may be declared invalid," the judge added, who is based in the Middle District of Pennsylvania.

Brann stayed the ruling to allow the Trump administration to file an objection during the appeal period. The acting U.S. Attorney is a private attorney for the . A New Jersey federal judge had previously rejected the appointment, leading to Brann being specially assigned to handle the challenges to the appointment. Brann's decision does not require the dismissal of the criminal charges approved by the acting U.S. Attorney's office against Cesar Humberto Pina. However, "given her current lack of authority to act as the acting U.S. Attorney, she must be prohibited from participating in all pending cases, including the Pina case as well as the cases of defendants Julian Girard Jr. and Julian Girard III," Brann wrote.

The ruling is significant as it highlights the importance of following proper legal procedures in appointing federal officials. The judge's order to bar the acting U.S. Attorney from participating in pending criminal cases ensures that the integrity of the legal process is maintained. This decision also sets a precedent for future appointments, emphasizing the need for adherence to legal standards and procedures.

The legal challenges faced by the Trump administration's appointments are not isolated incidents. They reflect a broader trend of judicial scrutiny over executive actions, particularly those related to law enforcement and national security. The ruling in this case is a reminder that the judiciary plays a crucial role in ensuring that the government operates within the bounds of the law.

The decision also raises questions about the qualifications and background checks for individuals appointed to high-level positions. The acting U.S. Attorney's lack of prior experience in federal law enforcement was a point of contention in the legal challenge. This case underscores the importance of thorough vetting processes to ensure that appointees are qualified and capable of fulfilling their duties effectively.

The ruling is likely to have implications for future appointments, as it sends a clear message to the executive branch about the importance of following legal procedures. It also serves as a reminder to the public about the checks and balances that exist within the government to ensure accountability and transparency. The decision is a victory for those who advocate for the rule of law and the importance of adhering to legal standards in government operations.