Judge Issues Stern Warning to Pam Bondi Amid DOJ Challenges Following Alina Habba Fallout

In a significant legal setback, the Department of Justice has been grappling with the repercussions of a judge’s ruling that Alina Habba was unlawfully appointed as the acting U.S. Attorney for New Jersey. This decision has triggered a series of complications, leading to a string of legal defeats and placing several indictments at risk.

The responsibility for reviewing the challenges to U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi’s controversial appointment of Habba was assigned to Chief U.S. District Judge Matthew Brann from Pennsylvania’s Middle District. Law&Crime extensively covered these proceedings and the ensuing courtroom battles.

Back in July 2025, criminal defense attorneys in New Jersey sounded the alarm over Bondi’s unauthorized actions to maintain President Donald Trump’s former legal representative in the position. They cautioned that this maneuver jeopardized hundreds of cases.

Although Habba vacated the position in December, shortly after the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld Judge Brann’s decision to disqualify her from managing prosecutions, Bondi’s appointment of a non-Senate-confirmed team in her stead has prompted further judicial scrutiny. The same judge is now considering dismissing cases.

Judge Brann, appointed by Barack Obama, did not mince words in his latest warning. Instead of referring to “hundreds,” he dramatically escalated the stakes by mentioning “thousands” of cases, sending a stark message to the Trump administration concerning the cases 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.”