Federal judge calls out DOJ for making completely novel pro-Alina Habba argument he specifically didn't want to hear yet

Source: Law & Crime

Aug 4th, 2025, 12:12 pm


Though he refused to dismiss a drug-trafficking indictment, a federal judge said he wants to hear more about whether U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi unlawfully reappointed acting U.S. Attorney Alina Habba to her role, opening the door to scrutiny of the Trump administration's method of apparently sidestepping a court and the U.S. Senate's blocking of certain nominations.

Chief U.S. District Judge for the Middle District of Pennsylvania Matthew Brann, sitting by designation in the criminal cases of Julien Giraud Jr. and Julien Giraud III after the New Jersey district court declined to appoint Habba itself upon the expiration of her 120-day acting limit, decided Friday that the Girauds were "not entitled to dismissal." At the same time, the defendants made a persuasive enough case for "additional argument regarding the legality of Ms. Habba's appointment" and the authority of the assistant U.S. attorneys under her command or supervision.

"I begin with dismissal of the indictment, which I conclude is not available, and then turn to injunctions against Ms. Habba and anyone acting under her authority, which I conclude would be appropriate if the Girauds prevail on the merits," the judge wrote.

Regarding dismissal, Brann determined that the Girauds could not credibly argue their indictment, obtained through the Senate-confirmed then-U.S. Attorney Philip Sellinger, is "somehow retroactively taint[ed]" by Habba's appointment, whether or not that was lawful. But the Girauds can still make their best pitch for blocking Habba, and her assistants, from prosecuting them going forward.

Read more: https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/judge-dings-doj-for-making-alina-habba-argument-he-specifically-didnt-want-to-hear/