Judge disqualifies trio of lawyers tapped to lead New Jersey’s federal prosecutor’s office

Federal Judge Disqualifies Three DOJ Officials in New Jersey, Citing Unconstitutional Appointments

A federal judge has struck down the Trump administration’s appointment of three Justice Department officials to oversee federal prosecutions in New Jersey, describing the move as an “illegal power grab” that violates constitutional requirements.

In a scathing 130-page ruling issued Monday, U.S. District Judge Matthew Brann disqualified Philip Lamparello, Jordan Fox, and Ari Fontecchio from their shared leadership roles in the New Jersey federal prosecutor’s office. The decision represents the latest development in an ongoing conflict between the judiciary and the Trump administration over the proper process for appointing U.S. attorneys.

The ruling follows Brann’s previous decision last year barring Alina Habba, Trump’s former personal attorney, from serving as U.S. attorney after she remained in the position too long without Senate confirmation. After Habba’s disqualification, Attorney General Pam Bondi implemented an unusual arrangement by appointing three Justice Department officials to jointly oversee the office.

Judge Brann determined this arrangement violated the Appointments Clause of the Constitution, which requires Senate confirmation for such positions. In his ruling, he characterized the administration’s actions as an “enormous assertion of Presidential power.”

“It is plain that President Trump and his top aides have chafed at the limits on their power set forth by law and the Constitution,” Brann wrote. “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.”

Federal law typically allows individuals to serve as U.S. attorneys without Senate confirmation only for limited periods. However, the Trump Justice Department has repeatedly attempted to extend these temporary appointments through what Brann described as “novel personnel maneuvers” that courts have subsequently ruled improper.

Habba, who has remained with the Justice Department as a senior adviser despite her disqualification as U.S. attorney, dismissed the ruling as “ridiculous” in a social media post. “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 wrote, characterizing the decision as an “unconstitutional overreach into the Executive Branch.”

In his ruling, Judge Brann pointedly noted that the Trump administration has at least three legally sound methods to fill the New Jersey position but has chosen not to use them. “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?” he questioned. “The Government tells us: the President doesn’t like that he cannot simply appoint whomever he wants.”

The judge further criticized the administration for prioritizing control over who runs the New Jersey federal prosecutor’s office rather than ensuring its proper functioning. “I am not fooled by the Government’s superficial arguments,” Brann stated in his sharply worded decision.

This case is not isolated. Similar judicial rulings have invalidated the appointments of federal prosecutors in Nevada, Los Angeles, and northern New York. In Virginia, Lindsey Halligan, who had pursued indictments against Trump’s adversaries, stepped down as acting U.S. attorney after a judge ruled her appointment unlawful. That same judge ordered the dismissal of indictments Halligan had brought against New York Attorney General Letitia James and former FBI Director James Comey.

In some instances, judges have used their legal authority to appoint interim U.S. attorneys until Senate-confirmed replacements are installed. The Justice Department has responded to these judicial appointments by immediately terminating those appointees, further intensifying the constitutional standoff between the branches of government.

The ongoing dispute highlights fundamental tensions regarding presidential appointment powers and constitutional checks and balances that have characterized the current administration’s approach to federal law enforcement leadership.