Obama Judge Says 3 Trump Prosecutors Are in Unlawful Roles

A federal judge appointed during the Obama administration has ruled that the leadership arrangement overseeing the federal prosecutor’s office in New Jersey is unlawful—while sharply criticizing President Donald J. Trump for insisting on selecting his own U.S. attorneys.

Matthew W. Brann, a federal judge typically based in Pennsylvania but assigned to handle the case in New Jersey, issued the ruling Monday. The decision centers on a three-person leadership structure that has managed the U.S. attorney’s office for the District of New Jersey since December.

According to The New York Times, Brann also took aim at the U.S. Department of Justice’s broader practice of removing prosecutors who were appointed by judges shortly after those appointments occur.

In a strongly worded opinion, the judge argued that the Trump administration appeared more concerned with maintaining control over the leadership of the New Jersey office than ensuring its operations continued uninterrupted. Brann even emphasized portions of the ruling in italics to underscore his criticism.

He warned that the administration’s approach to appointing prosecutors could create serious consequences for criminal cases already underway.

Judge Brann stated that “scores of dangerous criminals could have their cases dismissed or convictions eventually reversed” because of what he described as the president’s reliance on unlawful procedures to install top federal prosecutors.

The judge also warned that courts could be forced to dismiss pending cases if the administration continued what he called attempts “to unlawfully” control the office’s leadership. However, Brann said he would temporarily delay enforcement of his decision to allow the government time to file an appeal.

Under normal circumstances, U.S. attorneys are nominated by the president and confirmed by the United States Senate. These officials oversee federal prosecutors’ offices across more than 90 judicial districts nationwide.

But in several states, senators have blocked President Trump’s preferred nominees. One prominent example is Alina Habba—a former personal attorney to Trump—whom the president selected to lead the New Jersey office.

Because the confirmation process stalled, federal law allowed judges to step in and appoint interim leadership for vacant positions.

During President Trump’s second term, however, the Justice Department has frequently dismissed those judicially appointed prosecutors shortly after they assume office, asserting that the authority to select U.S. attorneys ultimately belongs to the president.

Todd Blanche, the deputy attorney general, underscored that position in a social media post following the appointment of an interim prosecutor in upstate New York.

“Judges don’t pick U.S. Attorneys, @POTUS does.” Refer to our Constitution’s Article II.

Judge Brann cited that statement in his ruling, describing it as “combative (and legally incomplete).” He argued that such comments suggested the Justice Department would refuse to allow anyone to lead a federal prosecutor’s office unless that individual had been personally selected by the president.

Habba—who now works at the Justice Department in Washington—quickly pushed back against the ruling.

Calling the decision “ridiculous,” she accused the judiciary of interfering with the president’s constitutional authority.

“Judges may continue to try and stop President Trump from carrying out what the American people voted for, but we will not be deterred,” Habba wrote on social media.

“The unconstitutionality of this complete overreach into the Executive Branch, time and time again, will not succeed.”

The dispute traces back to an earlier ruling in August, when Judge Brann concluded that Habba had violated the law by remaining in the position after her authority had expired.

After an appeals court sided with the government, Habba stepped aside in December. In her place, three prosecutors—Philip Lamparello, Jordan Fox, and Ari Fontecchio—were assigned to share leadership of the office.

That unusual arrangement, however, was the focus of Monday’s ruling.

Brann concluded the structure lacked a clear legal foundation and accused the administration of searching for expansive presidential powers within vague areas of federal law.

“Why does the fate of thousands of criminal prosecutions in this district potentially rest on the legitimacy of an unprecedented and byzantine leadership structure?” he wrote.

“The government tells us: The president doesn’t like that he cannot simply appoint whomever he wants.”

The legal challenge emerged after two defendants charged in the District of New Jersey questioned Habba’s authority and attempted to have their cases dismissed.

Following Habba’s resignation and Attorney General Pam Bondi’s decision to appoint the three prosecutors to jointly run the Newark office, additional challenges were filed—ultimately leading to Brann’s latest ruling.

The Justice Department is expected to appeal, setting up yet another clash between the judiciary and the Trump administration over the scope of presidential authority within the executive branch.