The decision follows a series of legal battles over whether her reappointment complies with federal laws and constitutional separation of powers, with her supporters arguing her work is legitimate.

A federal judge in New Jersey has ruled that Alina Habba, who was serving as the U.S. attorney, was unlawfully in her position because her interim appointment expired in July and her continued service lacked proper legal approval.

This ruling challenges Habba's authority, which was initially established through controversial appointment methods, including her designation as a 'special attorney' during the Trump administration.

The court's decision, issued by Chief U.S. District Judge Matthew Brann, invalidates her authority and has temporarily removed her from ongoing cases, including high-profile prosecutions.

The judge criticized the administration's legal maneuvers to keep Habba in office, warning that such tactics could be exploited to bypass Senate confirmation for entire terms, undermining the appointment process.

The Justice Department plans to appeal the ruling, with Attorney General Pam Bondi defending Habba's role and asserting that her authority is properly structured.

This legal dispute underscores broader issues surrounding the appointment procedures of U.S. attorneys, especially when interim appointments extend beyond the legal 120-day limit, raising questions about executive overreach.

The case also highlights the political and legal conflicts over the leadership of New Jersey’s federal prosecutor's office, with ongoing debates about the legitimacy of her appointment and the potential impact on prosecutions.

Legal experts suggest the ruling might challenge other acting officials appointed under the Federal Vacancies Reform Act, potentially causing broader administrative disruptions.

The controversy is part of a larger pattern of legal challenges to Trump-era appointments, with some U.S. attorneys serving in uncertain circumstances due to political opposition or legal disputes.

The ruling has implications for ongoing prosecutions and could influence future appointment practices for federal prosecutors, emphasizing the importance of following legal protocols.

As the Justice Department prepares to appeal, the case remains a significant constitutional showdown over the authority and process of appointing U.S. attorneys, with potential nationwide repercussions.