Appeals Court Upholds Disqualification of Alina Habba as New Jersey U.S. Attorney
 

Attachment 2597587

Appeals court upholds disqualification of Alina Habba as New Jersey’s top federal prosecutor

The ruling further stymies the Trump administration’s use of unusual tactics meant to quickly put or keep largely unqualified U.S. attorneys in place without Senate confirmation.

By Erica Orden

A panel of appeals court judges on Monday upheld the disqualification of Alina Habba, the top federal prosecutor in New Jersey, rejecting President Donald Trump’s use of unconventional methods to install loyalists atop U.S. attorney offices across the country.

“It is apparent that the current administration has been frustrated by some of the legal and political barriers to getting its appointees in place,” Judge D. Michael Fisher, an appointee of President George W. Bush, wrote in the 32-page opinion. “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.”

The ruling further stymies the Trump administration’s use of unusual tactics meant to quickly put or keep largely unqualified U.S. attorneys in place without Senate confirmation. Defendants are also challenging the authority of U.S. attorneys in California and Nevada, where judges have determined the Trump-picked prosecutors are serving unlawfully, and in upstate New York.

Last week, a judge disqualified top federal prosecutor Lindsey Halligan in the Eastern District of Virginia and tossed the politically charged cases she brought against Trump’s political enemies: former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James.

The Trump administration could appeal Monday’s ruling to the Supreme Court. Spokespeople for the Trump administration and Habba didn’t immediately respond to requests for comment.

Thomas Mirigliano, an attorney for one of the criminal defendants who brought the case against Habba, said: “The panel issued a clear and carefully reasoned decision that recognizes the extraordinary power vested in U.S. attorneys and reinforces the limits Congress has set on who may occupy those positions. We appreciate the Court’s thoughtful approach and the clarity it brings to this important issue.”

A judge is set to hear oral arguments Thursday in a case challenging the authority of John Sarcone III, the prosecutor Trump picked to lead the Northern District of New York.

The panel from the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that upheld Habba’s disqualification consisted of Fisher and Judge D. Brooks Smith, appointees of President George W. Bush, and Judge L. Felipe Restrepo, an appointee of President Barack Obama.

During oral arguments in October, the judges appeared skeptical of the Trump administration’s efforts, spending over an hour questioning the multistep process the Trump administration used to designate Habba, his former personal attorney, as the top federal prosecutor in New Jersey and keep her there even after district judges chose to replace her.

In most of the cases challenging the legality of U.S. attorneys, the defendants have asked for their indictments to be thrown out, arguing that the top prosecutors in the district didn’t have the authority to bring the charges. The decision Monday didn’t consider the New Jersey District Court’s decision declining to dismiss the indictments.

In the California and Nevada cases, the district judges have declined to dismiss the indictments, ruling they are valid because they were signed and handled not only by the U.S. attorney in question but also by legally serving career prosecutors.