The disqualification of two prominent prosecutors associated with former President Donald Trump has created a challenging landscape for the Department of Justice (DOJ). Alina Habba and Lindsey Halligan have both been ruled unlawfully appointed, leading to significant implications for Trump’s legal strategy. Their disqualifications present the DOJ with tough decisions regarding potential appeals and the risk of further adverse rulings.
This situation is particularly precarious, as the DOJ is now faced with the possibility of appointing new prosecutors whom Trump and his legal team would prefer to avoid. One potential consequence of ongoing appeals could be a ruling from the Supreme Court that limits the president’s appointment powers, which may affect the future composition of the DOJ.
The disqualification of Ms. Halligan has had substantial repercussions. Judge Cameron McGowan Currie determined her appointment was illegal, leading to the dismissal of charges against notable figures such as former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James. This ruling has further implications as Ms. James is also contesting the appointment of John Sarcone, the acting United States attorney for Northern New York.
All three prosecutors—Ms. Habba, Ms. Halligan, and Mr. Sarcone—were appointed in a manner that did not include Senate confirmation, a requirement for permanent U.S. attorneys. Despite federal judges in their respective districts rejecting their continued service beyond a 120-day interim period, Attorney General Pam Bondi retained them. Ms. Halligan’s tenure was particularly unusual, as she succeeded Erik Siebert as the second consecutive interim appointment in the Eastern District of Virginia.
In a recent ruling, Judge Brann found that Ms. Habba was not lawfully performing her duties as U.S. Attorney for the District of New Jersey, stating, “she must be disqualified from participating in any ongoing cases.” The DOJ argues that the attorney general has significant authority over who enforces federal laws. However, the Third United States Appeals Circuit countered that this authority does not extend to allowing Ms. Habba to bypass the constitutional appointment process.
In response to the ruling, Ms. Habba stated, “As a result of the Third Circuit’s ruling, and to protect the stability and integrity of the office which I love, I have decided to step down.” She emphasized that her compliance should not be mistaken for surrender, asserting, “This decision will not weaken the Justice Department and it will not weaken me.”
Attorney General Pam Bondi expressed her disappointment through social media, noting her close friendship with Ms. Habba. She suggested that Ms. Habba may return to lead the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of New Jersey if the government successfully appeals the ruling.
The timeline for any potential appeals remains uncertain. After a panel ruling, the case may be presented to the full appellate court and possibly the Supreme Court. A party has 30 days to file an appeal following a final ruling, but as of now, no appeal has been filed regarding the Third Circuit’s recent decision.
Ms. Bondi has stated her intention to file an immediate appeal concerning Ms. Halligan’s disqualification, although no formal appeal has yet been initiated. Meanwhile, the DOJ has attempted to indict Ms. James again, although that effort also fell short.
The outcomes of these legal challenges may significantly influence the ongoing political landscape and the future of the DOJ under the current administration. As the situation develops, the implications for Trump’s legal strategy and the integrity of the DOJ will become increasingly clear.
