Trump’s Handpicked U.S. Attorneys Face Mounting Legal Setbacks Over Appointment Legality

In recent weeks, a series of court rulings has thrown the Department of Justice under former President Donald J. Trump into turmoil, as multiple judges have moved to invalidate or scrutinize the appointments of several U.S. attorneys selected by the former president. The decisions have cast uncertainty over high-profile prosecutions targeting figures such as former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James, raising broader questions about the administration’s use of interim prosecutors and the limits of executive authority.

Three Trump-aligned appointees—Alina Habba in New Jersey, Lindsey Halligan in Virginia, and John Saronei in New York—have faced formal rebukes from federal courts, each found either improperly appointed or potentially in violation of federal vacancy laws. None of the three had prior experience as federal prosecutors, and all were chosen outside traditional Justice Department channels, often bypassing Senate confirmation.

The most sweeping ruling came from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, which removed Ms. Habba from her position as acting U.S. attorney in New Jersey. The unanimous decision found that the administration’s attempt to elevate her through a combination of internal reshuffling and novel interpretations of the Federal Vacancies Reform Act violated the statute’s plain limitations.

That ruling mirrored an earlier decision in the Eastern District of Virginia, where Judge Rebecca Curry dismissed indictments against Mr. Comey and Ms. James, concluding that Ms. Halligan lacked legal authority to bring the charges. The court held that the administration had already exhausted its single opportunity to appoint an interim U.S. attorney under Section 546, leaving subsequent appointments to the district court’s judges rather than the White House.

Although the dismissals were issued without prejudice—allowing prosecutors to refile charges with a properly appointed official—the developments have stalled the cases and forced the Justice Department to convene new grand juries in Virginia to consider possible reindictments. Legal experts say the cases now face additional obstacles, including expired statutes of limitations and new motions challenging potential Fourth Amendment violations related to seized materials.

In New York, a similar challenge now confronts Mr. Saronei, the U.S. attorney for the Northern District of New York, whose appointment is under review by a federal judge in Manhattan. That inquiry stems from his office’s investigation of Ms. James, whom Mr. Trump has frequently targeted after she secured a $400 million civil fraud judgment against him and installed a court-appointed monitor to oversee the Trump Organization.

Though rulings from the Third Circuit are not binding in New York, they represent the only appellate guidance currently available, giving them significant persuasive weight. A decision invalidating Mr. Saronei’s appointment could nullify his office’s subpoenas and imperil ongoing investigations.

Legal analysts say the pattern reflects a broader strategy by the former president: appointing loyalists unlikely to survive Senate confirmation, particularly in politically sensitive states with Democratic senators who can block nominees through the “blue slip” process. By relying on interim or acting authorities, Mr. Trump circumvented traditional vetting but exposed his appointees to legal vulnerabilities that courts are now examining.

The disputes are expected to advance quickly through appellate courts and may ultimately reach the Supreme Court. Until then, several of the administration’s most politically charged cases remain in limbo, raising doubts about the durability of the former president’s prosecutorial agenda.