A second federal judge has now escalated the turmoil inside New Jersey’s U.S. attorney’s office, raising questions about who has lawful authority to run federal prosecutions in the state and what that instability could mean for pending cases.
MORRIS COUNTY, NJ – A federal judge has ruled that the three-lawyer leadership team now running the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of New Jersey was installed unlawfully, marking the latest chapter in a months-long fight over who can legally lead one of the state’s most powerful law enforcement offices. On March 9, 2026, U.S. District Judge Matthew W. Brann disqualified Philip Lamparello, Jordan Fox, and Ari Fontecchio from prosecuting or supervising two criminal cases before him, though he stayed that order while appeals move forward.
The ruling came after an earlier battle over Alina Habba, President Donald Trump’s former personal lawyer, who was sworn in as interim U.S. attorney for New Jersey on March 28, 2025. A Third Circuit panel later held that Habba was not lawfully serving in the role under the Federal Vacancies Reform Act, and she resigned on December 8, 2025. That same day, Attorney General Pam Bondi authorized Lamparello, Fox, and Fontecchio to divide the office’s work among themselves instead of naming a Senate-confirmed U.S. attorney.
In his 130-page opinion, Brann said the arrangement was not a lawful workaround but an attempt to split the powers of a U.S. attorney among three officials who had not gone through Senate confirmation. Reuters reported that Brann described the structure as a “Byzantine” attempt to evade constitutional and statutory limits, while the opinion itself says Bondi’s order sought to divide or delegate the responsibilities of the office of U.S. attorney among the three officials.
That ruling did not immediately shut down the office because Brann stayed the practical effect of his order during appellate proceedings. But it deepened uncertainty around the office’s legal footing, especially because Brann warned that unauthorized leadership could jeopardize large numbers of federal prosecutions if the structure is ultimately struck down without a valid replacement in place.
The instability spilled into another courtroom on March 17, 2026, when U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi sharply rebuked federal prosecutors during a hearing in Trenton, threw a prosecutor out of the courtroom, and ordered Lamparello, Fox, and Fontecchio to appear and testify under oath about who is running the office and under what authority. Quraishi said the Justice Department had lost the court’s trust and tied his concern to the office’s handling of a child exploitation case in which a plea had been accepted before more evidence was uncovered.
Why this matters is larger than the personalities involved. The U.S. Attorney’s Office for New Jersey handles major federal prosecutions across the state, including public corruption, organized crime, corporate fraud, narcotics, gun cases, civil litigation involving the federal government, and appeals. If the people directing those cases are later found to have lacked lawful authority, defense lawyers are likely to keep challenging indictments, supervision decisions, and plea agreements, potentially extending the legal uncertainty that has already followed Habba’s tenure.
The legal dispute also fits into a broader national fight over how far a president and attorney general can go in installing temporary U.S. attorneys without Senate confirmation. Bloomberg Law reported in December that the Habba ruling could constrain future administrations that try to use temporary appointment mechanisms to keep political allies in place before the Senate acts. Reuters and AP have since reported that New Jersey became one of the clearest flashpoints in that fight because the administration tried one method with Habba, lost in court, and then tried another with the three-person structure.
For New Jersey residents, the immediate question is not whether every federal case will collapse. Courts have not said that. The more immediate question is whether the Justice Department can stabilize the office with a clearly lawful leadership structure before more cases are delayed or challenged. As of March 18, 2026, the three officials remain in charge while the March 9 ruling is on hold pending appeal, and Quraishi has signaled that he wants sworn answers in open court about how the office is operating right now.