Alina Habba, former personal lawyer to President Donald Trump, has been appointed Acting U.S. Attorney for the District of New Jersey, a move that follows a contentious period where federal judges had sought to replace her. This appointment by President Trump ensures Habba's continued leadership of the federal prosecutor's office in New Jersey, despite her interim term having expired and judicial efforts to install a different individual. The decision comes amidst a legal and political dispute over the leadership of the traditionally nonpartisan role.
Habba's initial appointment as interim U.S. Attorney in late March for a 120-day term was met with scrutiny due to her lack of prior prosecutorial experience. During her interim tenure, she garnered controversy for initiating high-profile investigations into Democratic officials and publicly stating her aim to "turn New Jersey red." Critics argued these actions politicized an office traditionally expected to remain impartial.
As Habba's 120-day interim term concluded, federal judges in New Jersey, citing their authority under federal law, moved to appoint Desiree Leigh Grace as her successor. This judicial intervention aimed to fill the vacancy, but Attorney General Pam Bondi swiftly intervened, firing Ms. Grace shortly after her appointment. Bondi criticized the federal judges as "politically minded" for their decision.
To circumvent the judicial action and ensure Habba's continuity in the role, the White House withdrew her previous nomination for the U.S. Attorney position. This procedural maneuver allows Habba to serve as "Acting" U.S. Attorney for up to 210 days, bypassing the prior 120-day interim limit and the need for Senate confirmation during this acting period. White House spokesman Harrison Fields affirmed President Trump's "full confidence in Alina Habba and her commitment to serve the people of New Jersey."
The re-appointment has drawn sharp criticism from New Jersey's Democratic Senators, Cory Booker and Andy Kim, who stated, > "Trump’s Department of Justice is once again criticizing a court that acted within its authority, continuing a pattern of publicly undermining judicial decisions and showing disregard for the rule of law and the separation of powers." This ongoing dispute highlights broader concerns about the independence and politicization of the Justice Department.