Federal Courts Block Trump-Era Appointments, Citing Constitutional Violations
A series of federal court rulings has invalidated key appointments made during the final days of the Trump administration, finding they unlawfully bypassed the United States Senate. Judges across multiple jurisdictions have ruled that appointing top federal prosecutors without Senate confirmation violates the Constitution's Appointments Clause, which requires "advice and consent" for principal officers.
In a significant ruling, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit declared that former President Donald Trump’s appointment of Alina Habba as New Jersey’s acting U.S. Attorney was unlawful [16325]. The court found the 2021 appointment violated the Appointments Clause, as Habba served without undergoing the required Senate confirmation process. A separate appeals court upheld a lower court's decision to permanently remove Habba from the senior law enforcement role [16207].
Similarly, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit upheld the disqualification of Michael R. Sherwin, who served as Acting U.S. Attorney for Washington, D.C. [16745]. The court ruled his appointment violated the Attorney General’s succession rules and improperly sidestepped the Senate's constitutional role. In its decision, the court criticized the attempt to bypass this standard check on presidential power for key positions.
These rulings represent a legal rebuke of the administration's appointment procedures and reinforce the constitutional framework for filling high-level vacancies. The courts have consistently held that the executive branch cannot unilaterally install principal officers in an acting capacity when the appointment is intended to be more than temporary. The decisions do not affect any past prosecutions handled by the offices during these tenures, but they formally invalidate the appointees' authority in those roles [16325][16745].
Legal experts suggest the rulings set a clear precedent, emphasizing that the "advice and consent" process is a fundamental separation-of-powers requirement, not a procedural formality that can be routinely circumvented.
Sources: