Listen to this article

The basics:

• Federal judge rules Trump administration unlawfully installed 3 officials to lead the NJ US Attorney’s Office
• Chief Judge Matthew Brann says appointments bypassed Senate confirmation
• Decision could threaten thousands of federal criminal prosecutions
• Ruling temporarily stayed while the Justice Department appeals

A federal judge ruled that the Trump administration overstepped its authority by installing three Justice Department officials to lead the U.S. Attorney’s Office in New Jersey without first securing U.S. Senate confirmation.

Chief Judge Matthew Brann of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania penned the March 9 opinion. Brann warned that thousands of criminal cases could be dismissed because Philip Lamparello, Jordan Fox and Ari Fontecchio have unlawfully served in their positions since December 2025.

The DOJ tapped the trio to lead the U.S. Attorney’s Office after Brann disqualified Alina Habba in August 2025. Her exit came amid similar questions over the legality of her appointment. Habba, Trump’s former personal attorney, was then named a senior advisor to Attorney General Pam Bondi.

Shared responsibility

At the time, officials said the joint leadership arrangement intended to divide the responsibilities of the U.S. attorney position across different divisions of the office.

In a 130-page opinion, Brann said the Justice Department cannot delegate the powers of U.S. attorney to multiple officials without Senate confirmation or a proper appointment under federal law. He also believes it’s clear that the president and his top aids have “chafed at the limits on their power set forth by the law and the Constitution.”

Brann temporarily stayed his ruling this week to allow an appeal. That means the three-person leadership team can remain in place, for now, while the case moves forward.

‘Novel leadership plans’

However, he warned that if the White House chooses to leave the “triumvirate” in place, it “does so at its own risk.” Brann said it could lead to legal challenges for future filings or prosecutions.

“Why does the fate of thousands of criminal prosecutions in this district potentially rest on the legitimacy of an unprecedented and Byzantine leadership structure?” Brann wrote. “The government tells us: the president doesn’t like that he cannot simply appoint whomever he wants.”

“The work of the USAO-NJ is simply too important to continue throwing novel leadership plans at the wall to see what will stick. Compromise is part of the system, and I implore the Government to take that approach.

“If it does not, it is on notice that a third attempt at unilateral office filling will be met with extremely strict scrutiny, and any deficiency in its method will be taken as bad faith and result in dismissal of cases at any stage,” he wrote.

Habba speaks out

Federal officials appealed Brann’s prior ruling that Habba was illegally installed. However, a three-judge panel from the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals then agreed the Trump administration had violated rules governing federal appointments.

A spokesperson for the Justice Department did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

In a social media post, Habba described the opinion as “another ridiculous ruling” by Brann.

“Judges may continue to try and stop President Trump from carrying out what the American people voted for, but we will not be deterred,” she said. “The unconstitutionality of this complete overreach into the Executive Branch, time and time again, will not succeed. They would rather have no U.S. Attorney than safety for the people of NJ.”

“Judges do not fire DOJ officials, AG Pam Bondi and POTUS do – get in line,” she added.

Habba was the first of Trump’s U.S. attorney appointments to face a legal challenge. The administration is currently appealing rulings it tried to usurp the traditional appointment process for three other U.S. attorneys:

• Lindsey Halligan (Eastern District of Virginia)
• Bill Essayli (Central District of California)
• Sigal Chattah (Nevada)