Federal Appeals Court Questions Legitimacy of Alina Habba's US Attorney Appointment

Left-leaning sources frame this story by emphasizing the legal challenges to Alina Habba's appointment as US attorney. They use loaded language like "grilled" and "peppered with questions" to describe the DOJ lawyer's court appearance, suggesting a difficult defense. The coverage highlights critical arguments from the defense counsel and the judge's skepticism, underscoring the perceived impropriety of the appointment process.

"The Justice Department is appealing a lower court’s ruling that found Habba is serving in the role unlawfully after finding the administration violated the Federal Vacancies Reform Act, which guides the process for how Senate confirmed positions should be made."

CNN

·1d

Article

Right-leaning sources frame this story by emphasizing the federal appeals court's skepticism regarding the Trump administration's efforts to retain Alina Habba. They highlight the judges' critical questioning and use terms like "lengths" and "maneuvering" to describe the administration's actions. While including the DOJ's defense, the narrative prioritizes judicial concerns about "circumvention" and "separation of powers," often presenting the defense followed by a counterpoint.

"The outcome could also affect the criminal case against former FBI Director James Comey, whose lawyers have cited Habba’s removal ruling in their bid to disqualify prosecutor Lindsey Halligan, another Trump-appointed U.S. attorney facing similar legal challenges."

Washington Examiner

·1d

Article

"The panel from the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia spent more than an hour questioning the process the administration used to install the president's former personal lawyer as the Garden State's acting U.S. attorney, even as district judges sought to oust her."

Newsmax

·1d

Article