Federal judges keep disqualifying Trump prosecutors, sparking concerns about judicial overreach

Federal judges across the country have repeatedly invalidated or questioned the legality of President Donald Trump’s appointment of U.S. Attorneys, sparking debate about who ultimately controls the selection of federal prosecutors. 

Critics of the rulings contend they reflect a growing willingness by federal judges to intervene in the executive branch’s internal staffing decisions – interventions that can effectively halt or derail key initiatives of a presidential administration.

Supporters argue that courts are simply enforcing the Constitution’s structural limits on federal power and protecting the Senate’s role in confirming senior executive officials – in a conflict that has drawn in all three branches of government. 

By invalidating the authority of the prosecutors who brought those cases, courts have done more than resolve technical questions of appointment law – they have also reshaped the administration’s ability to carry out its law-enforcement agenda.

Alina Habba

In March of last year, President Trump announced that Alina Habba, one of his former personal attorneys and a legal adviser to his presidential campaign, would serve as interim U.S. Attorney for the District of New Jersey.

That same month, Attorney General Pamela Bondi swore Habba into the position pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 546(a), which allows the attorney general to appoint a U.S. attorney when a vacancy exists in the office.

But interim appointments under the statute are limited in duration. Under 28 U.S.C. § 546(c), an interim U.S. attorney may serve only until the earlier of Senate confirmation of a presidential nominee or 120 days.

In June 2025, about a month before that deadline expired, President Trump formally nominated Habba to serve as U.S. attorney for the District of New Jersey.

When the 120-day period elapsed without Senate confirmation, however, the administration attempted to keep Habba in charge of the office by withdrawing her nomination and appointing her instead as a “Special Attorney.”

The maneuver was challenged in federal court by defendants in two criminal cases: Julien Giraud Jr. and Julien Giraud II, who were charged in a federal drug case, and Cesar Humberto Pina, who faced fraud and money-laundering charges.

Although the litigation originated in the District of New Jersey, the matter was reassigned to U.S. District Judge Matthew Brann of the Middle District of Pennsylvania, an Obama appointee, to avoid potential conflicts within the New Jersey bench.

Late last year, Brann ruled that Habba’s continued service exceeded the statutory 120-day limit and violated federal law governing interim appointments.

After judges in the district designated another official to serve as acting U.S. attorney, the Justice Department attempted to reinstall Habba in the role – an effort Brann again deemed unlawful. Habba ultimately resigned in late-2025 after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed Brann’s decision.

Trump has targeted his ire over the matter on fellow Republicans who control the Senate, chastising them after Habba resigned for allowing the continuation of the chamber's "blue slip" tradition, which lets home-state senators veto presidential nominees to District Courts and U.S. Attorney offices.

“The Republicans should be ashamed of themselves,” he said. “Because I can’t appoint a U.S. attorney that’s not a Democrat, because they put a block on it.”

Habba’s Replacements 

Following the Habba ruling, Attorney General Bondi installed three Justice Department lawyers – Philip Lamparello, Jordan Fox, and Ari Fontecchio – to oversee the office. 

In a sharply worded opinion issued las week, Judge Brann ruled for a second time that the leadership of the U.S. Attorney’s Office in New Jersey is serving unlawfully, holding that the trio appointed by Bondi also lacks constitutional and statutory authority to run the office. Brann rejected the government’s argument that the lawyers could exercise the powers of a U.S. attorney without Senate confirmation.

Brann stayed his decision to allow the Trump administration to appeal. But he included a pointed warning: “If the Government chooses to leave the triumvirate in place, it does so at its own risk.” 

Any further attempts to prosecute under unauthorized leadership in the office, Brann warned, could result in the dismissal of pending criminal cases.

The opinion conveyed clear frustration with the administration’s approach to federal appointments. “One year into this administration, it is plain that President Trump and his top aides have chafed at the limits of their power set forth by the law and the Constitution,” Brann wrote.

Habba, who was named a senior adviser to Bondi after leaving the New Jersey post last year, sharply criticized the ruling on X. “Another ridiculous ruling from Judge Brann,” she said. “Judges do not fire DOJ officials, AG Pam Bondi and POTUS do - get in line.”

Lindsay Halligan

The controversy over the president’s nominees has not been limited to New Jersey.

In September of last year, President Trump nominated Lindsay Halligan to serve as U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia. At the same time, the attorney general issued an order designating Halligan as interim U.S. attorney while the position remained vacant pending Senate confirmation.

Halligan had previously served as a special assistant to the president and as a senior associate staff secretary in the White House.

Within days of assuming the interim role, Halligan appeared before a federal grand jury and secured a two-count indictment against former FBI Director James Comey, alleging that he made false statements to Congress and obstructed a congressional proceeding during testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee in 2020. The testimony was related to Comey's oversight of the FBI's investigation into possible ties between Russia and 2016 Trump presidential campaign.

Halligan also obtained an indictment charging New York Attorney General Letitia James with bank fraud and making false statements to a financial institution. In 2022, James, a Democrat, filed a civil suit against Trump and his company for inflating the value of some of their properties. The financial penalty was later thrown out on appeal.

Comey and James moved to dismiss their indictments, arguing that Halligan’s appointment violated the Appointments Clause of the U.S. Constitution and federal statutes governing U.S. attorney vacancies.

In a pair of rulings issued last November, U.S. District Judge Cameron Currie, a Clinton appointee, agreed.

Currie held that Halligan’s designation as interim U.S. attorney violated both the Appointments Clause and federal law regulating temporary appointments. Because Halligan lacked lawful authority to act as the district’s chief federal prosecutor, the court dismissed the criminal cases against both Comey and James.

Halligan stepped down from the interim position shortly after the rulings were issued.

Are judges stopping President Trump’s agenda?

The judicial decisions also carry significant practical consequences for the Trump administration. Several of the affected prosecutions involve political adversaries or other high-profile figures whom Trump has publicly pledged to investigate and, where appropriate, charge. 

By invalidating the authority of the prosecutors who brought those cases, courts have done more than resolve technical questions of appointment law – they have also reshaped the administration’s ability to carry out its law-enforcement agenda.