Left: Alina Habba, President Donald Trump”s pick to be the interim U.S. Attorney for New Jersey, arrives to speak with reporters outside the White House, March 26, 2025, in Washington (AP Photo/Mark Schiefelbein, File). Right: Attorney General Pam Bondi, speaks during a news conference with President Donald Trump in the James Brady Press Briefing Room at the White House, Monday, Aug. 11, 2025, in Washington (AP Photo/Alex Brandon).
Since a judge found Alina Habba was unlawfully appointed as acting U.S. attorney for New Jersey, the DOJ has looked on for months as the decision factored into a series of other losses. An unsuccessful appeal didn’t help, but the damage has only worsened to the point of putting indictments in peril.
Chief U.S. District Judge Matthew Brann of the Middle District of Pennsylvania was designated to handle criminal defendants’ challenges to the lawfulness of U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi’s acting appointment of Habba, under circumstances Law&Crime closely covered at the time and in subsequent battles with courts.
Criminal defense attorneys in the Garden State warned in July 2025, when the controversy was at its peak, that Bondi’s unlawful maneuvering to keep President Donald Trump’s former criminal defense attorney in place put hundreds of cases at stake.
Although Habba stepped aside from the role in December, one week after the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed Brann’s decision to disqualify her from supervising prosecutions, the non-Senate-confirmed “triumvirate” Bondi put in place in the aftermath has the same judge threatening to toss out cases.
Brann, a Barack Obama appointee, didn’t use the word “hundreds” on Monday; he used the word “thousands,” issuing a clear warning to the Trump administration in the matters of Raheel Naviwala and Daniel Torres.
The criminal defendants argued that the DOJ’s solution for running the U.S. attorney’s office — installing Senior Counsel Philip Lamparello, Special Attorney Jordan Fox, and executive assistant U.S. Attorney Ari Fontecchio — also failed to follow the law.
Brann spent 130 pages explaining why he agreed the “triumvirate” had to be disqualified from Naviwala’s prosecution, and why Torres’ indictment could still be dismissed, having been brought under authority Habba did not have.
“I conclude that the triumvirate collectively is performing the functions and duties of the vacant office of the United States Attorney for the District of New Jersey in violation of the FVRA [Federal Vacancies Reform Act]. Although many if not all of their actions are not void ab initio, all of their actions are at least voidable,” he said. “Moreover, because their service does not comport with the FVRA, they can be disqualified from further action.”
With references to the American founding, Trump’s recent tariffs loss at SCOTUS, and favorable citations of Justices Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia on the separation of powers, the judge remarked that “it is plain that President Trump and his top aides have chafed at the limits on their power” under the law of the land by claiming to find “enormous” executive power in “hidden” places.
“To avoid these roadblocks, this administration frequently purports to have discovered enormous grants of executive power hidden in the vagaries and silences of the code. Here, the Government proffers that, notwithstanding Congress’s clear and unambiguous requirement of Presidential nomination and Senate confirmation before a person may exercise the powers of a United States Attorney—a limit established by the First Congress and unchanged for over 236 years—Congress also, through a tangled web of broad enactments using general language, simultaneously authorized the Attorney General to ignore this requirement and appoint whomever she wants to do exactly the same job,” the judge summarized, not convinced the “enormous assertion of Presidential power” had a basis in law.
At one point, Brann seemed confused as to why the DOJ had gone down this road, even though it was aware of “at least three” legal appointment options — including nominating a qualified U.S. attorney for the U.S. Senate to confirm.
“With all these options remaining, why does the fate of thousands of criminal prosecutions in this District potentially rest on the legitimacy of an unprecedented and byzantine leadership structure? The Government tells us: the President doesn’t like that he cannot simply appoint whomever he wants,” the judge continued. “Notwithstanding the chaos that pervades criminal prosecutions in this District, and without regard to the possibility that scores of dangerous criminals could have their cases dismissed or convictions eventually reversed, ‘the [E]xecutive branch, at least right now, is not prepared to … use [the legal] options.'”
Noticing that the government “explicitly concede[d]” that the “triumvirate” is “not necessary to keep the office running,” Brann reflected on the fact that the Trump administration’s losses on appointments have now piled up across five districts.
The judge then clarified that he was not confused, that it was “crystal clear” to him that the DOJ “cares far more” about “unilaterally” installing Trump’s choice and picking fights with courts than functioning.
“As long as the President is willing to find compromise, there is no reason that someone cannot always be performing the functions and duties of the office in complete conformity with the law,” Brann commented. “Yet through its statements and actions, the Administration has made clear that it cares far more about who is running the USAO-NJ than whether it is running at all.”
Finding the “triumvirate” a “unilateral appointment” that has been acting in violation of the Constitution, the judge “warned” the DOJ to follow the law from here on out, or its bids to put alleged criminals behind bars “will” be tossed.
“Furthermore, the Government is warned that any further attempts to unlawfully fill the office will result in dismissals of pending cases,” he said, adding later that if the Trump administration “chooses to leave the triumvirate in place, it does so at its own risk.”
