Alina Habba's disqualification upheld on appeal Trump DOJ's theory "permitting anyone to fill the U.S. Attorney role indefinitely" should "raise a red flag," the three-judge panel said. Adam Klasfeld Dec 1 Alina Habba (Photo by Win McNamee/Getty Images) Watch my Substack Live with Katie Phang on this development today at 12 p.m. Eastern Time. A federal appeals court unanimously upheld an order disqualifying Donald Trump’s former personal attorney Alina Habba from the position of U.S. Attorney for the District of New Jersey. “The United States Attorneys’ offices are some of the most critical agencies in the Federal Government,” U.S. Circuit Judge D. Michael Fisher, a George W. Bush appointee, wrote for the three-judge panel. “They play an important role in the criminal and civil justice systems and are vital in keeping our communities safe. The U.S. Attorney leading each office is an officer whose appointment requires Senate confirmation.” Senior U.S. Circuit Judge David Smith, another W. Bush appointee, and U.S. Circuit Judge L. Felipe Restrepo, a Joe Biden appointee, joined the 32-page opinion. The ruling represents the fifth consecutive defeat for Trump’s Justice Department in its effort to install loyalists for U.S. Attorney roles who were not confirmed by the Senate or approved by the judges of their respective districts. “Where a vacancy exists, Congress has shown a strong preference that an acting officer be someone with a breadth of experience to properly lead the office,” the ruling continues. “It is apparent that the current administration has been frustrated by some of the legal and political barriers to getting its appointees in place. Its efforts to elevate its preferred candidate for U.S. Attorney for the District of New Jersey, Alina Habba, to the role of Acting U.S. Attorney demonstrate the difficulties it has faced—yet the citizens of New Jersey and the loyal employees in the U.S. Attorney’s Office deserve some clarity and stability.” Even before Habba’s disqualification by a lower court in August, at least 12 district judges adjourned criminal proceedings because of the uncertainty surrounding the legitimacy of the purported prosecutor’s actions. Trials, sentencing proceedings, and other hearings have continued to be delayed. In the interim, other Trump-installed U.S. Attorneys were disqualified by other judges, including the District of Nevada’s Sigal Chattah, the Central District of California’s Bill Essayli, and the Eastern District of Virginia’s Lindsey Halligan. Every challenge against the legitimacy of a Trump-installed U.S. Attorney so far has succeeded. A hearing on Thursday will challenge the legality of the appointment of another purported U.S. Attorney: the Northern District of New York’s John Sarcone. The Justice Department argued that Habba could be delegated the powers of a U.S. Attorney, even if she didn’t meet the qualifications for one, but the panel disagreed. “This delegation theory would create a means for the Department of Justice to circumvent the [Federal Vacancies Reform Act]’s exclusivity provision, effectively permitting anyone to fill the U.S. Attorney role indefinitely,” the ruling states. This should raise a red flag, given the careful time limitations included in both the FVRA and the U.S. Attorney-specific statute.” The case is widely expected to lead to a Supreme Court showdown on this issue. Read the opinion in full here. This Substack is reader-supported. To receive new posts and support this work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.