ACDL-NJ

Statement of the ACDL-NJ Regarding
the United States Attorney's Office for the District of New Jersey

December 9, 2025 -- In affirming Alina Habba’s disqualification, the Third Circuit stressed that “the citizens of New Jersey … deserve some clarity and stability” in the appointment of the United States Attorney. The government’s latest maneuver provides neither. There is no U.S. Attorney, no Acting U.S. Attorney, and no First Assistant.

Congress has long required that such vacancies be filled through Senate confirmation to preserve democratic accountability, and that interim or acting officials be designated pursuant to statutory mechanisms Congress has provided.

Rather than use these constitutional and statutory options, the government has simply replaced one unconfirmed individual with three. The current delegation and division of authority among three Assistant U.S. Attorneys is yet another effort to circumvent the congressionally enacted statutes governing how a U.S. Attorney vacancy must be filled.

For over 40 years, the ACDL-NJ has worked to preserve the rule of law. All defendants—and all individuals under investigation—are entitled to a constitutionally and statutorily compliant U.S. Attorney’s Office. Defendants accused of violating the law are entitled to be prosecuted only by an individual appointed pursuant to constitutional and statutory processes.

As Attorney General Robert H. Jackson warned, the “most dangerous power of the prosecutor” arises when structural safeguards are weakened and prosecution becomes “personal.” It is precisely to avoid such risks that Congress designed, and courts enforce, the appointment framework at issue here.

The statutory mechanisms Congress provided remain fully available. The Administration should now use one of them. Alternatively, the judges of the District of New Jersey should act under 28 U.S.C. § 546(d).

The ACDL-NJ's History and Mission

The Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers of New Jersey (ACDL-NJ) was established in 1984 and has since become the primary organized voice for the criminal defense bar in New Jersey. The ACDL-NJ was formed, among other reasons, to respond to the continuing problems confronting criminal defense lawyers when they honestly, ethically, but zealously represent their clients; to protect and insure compliance with those individual rights guaranteed by the New Jersey and United States Constitutions; and to encourage cooperation among criminal defense lawyers engaged in the furtherance of those objectives. The criminal defense lawyer has a difficult job, which is poorly understood by the public and, on occasion, even by the courts. The ACDL-NJ's message to criminal defense lawyers has always been, and will continue to be: in your efforts to insure the basic rights and liberties of all people, you are not alone.

Message from the President

I am honored to be the President of the Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers of New Jersey. Our organization is an active, engaged group of more than 500 members across New Jersey, assisting each other to become effective advocates on behalf of criminal defendants, especially in difficult situations. The ACDL-NJ continues to make its voice heard in the New Jersey appellate courts as amicus curiae on behalf of the interests of the criminal defense bar and its clients in important matters. Our Lawyers Assistance Committee has successfully advocated on behalf of ACDL members in state and federal court, and our Legislation Committee has continued to monitor and weigh in on pending legislation affecting criminal defendants. The ACDL-NJ listserv enables members to reach out to our entire membership and pick the brains of the finest criminal defense lawyers in this State. In sum, there has never been a better time to become a member of the ACDL-NJ. If you are already a member and have suggestions about how to make the ACDL-NJ more useful to its members, please let us know.

- Joshua C. Gillette, ACDL-NJ President

Prior News:

Third Circuit Affirms Disqualification of Alina Habba

Washington, D.C., December 2, 2025 – Yesterday the Third Circuit affirmed the district court’s order disqualifying Alina Habba from serving as the U.S. Attorney for the District of New Jersey.

“This decision is a victory for justice and the rule of law,” said Washington Litigation Group Senior Counsel James Pearce, who argued the case before the district court and again before the Third Circuit on behalf of the Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers of New Jersey (ACDL-NJ). “The court recognized that the government failed to comply with the laws governing the appointment of a U.S. Attorney, a federal prosecutor who wields tremendous power.”

ACDL-NJ President Joshua Gillette also praised the decision: “ACDL-NJ welcomes the court’s recognition that ‘the citizens of New Jersey . . . deserve some clarity and stability’ in the appointment of United States Attorneys given the critical role of that office. Defendants accused of violating the law deserve to be prosecuted only by someone lawfully empowered to do so. The court’s decision properly enforces that principle.”

District Court Rules Alina Habba’s Appointment Unlawful

Washington, D.C., August 22, 2025 – On Thursday afternoon, a District Court judge ruled that Alina Habba’s appointment as U.S. Attorney was unlawful. According to the court, because Ms. Habba “is not currently qualified to exercise the functions and duties of the office in an acting capacity, she must be disqualified from participating in any ongoing cases.”

The Washington Litigation Group had filed a brief before the District Court on behalf of the Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers of New Jersey, and Senior Counsel James Pearce argued before the court on August 15.

“We are grateful for the District Court’s decision finding that Alina Habba’s appointment was unlawful,” said James Pearce. “As we explained in our brief and at argument, Congress has established a detailed process for the appointment of acting and interim U.S. Attorneys. The District Court correctly concluded that the executive branch cannot circumvent the law. If the government appeals the decision, we stand ready to represent the unified voice of the New Jersey criminal defense bar.”

The District Court’s decision is available here. The Group’s brief is available here.

With James Pearce on the brief were Senior Counsels Mary Dohrmann and Nathaniel Zelinsky.

The Washington Litigation Group Files Brief And Will Argue In Court
Regarding Alina Habba’s Appointment As Acting U.S. Attorney

Washington, D.C., August 13, 2025 – The Washington Litigation Group filed a brief on behalf of the Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers of New Jersey contesting Alina Habba’s unlawful appointment as Acting U.S. Attorney for New Jersey. The brief argues that the Executive Branch improperly circumvented the statutory limitations regarding who may serve as an acting U.S. Attorney, and that Ms. Habba’s appointment is invalid.

On August 15, the Washington Litigation Group will present oral argument on behalf of the ACDL-NJ before the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey.

“The Founders were particularly worried about a chief executive abusing the power to appoint officials. To guard against that risk, the Constitution provides Congress the authority to define who may serve as an acting official,” explained James Pearce, a Senior Counsel with the Washington Litigation Group.

“For multiple reasons explained in our brief, Ms. Habba does not meet the statutory criteria for an acting U.S. Attorney. We are proud to represent the Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers of New Jersey in this important matter.”

The Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers is the primary organized voice for the criminal defense bar in New Jersey. “All we want to do is make sure the government follows the law,” said the ACDL-NJ’s President Joshua C. Gillette. “This is not an academic matter. The U.S. Attorney for New Jersey exercises enormous authority in criminal cases, and she can have a tremendous impact on the lives of defendants.”

James Pearce will be arguing the case for the ACDL-NJ. With him on the brief are Senior Counsels Mary Dohrmann and Nathaniel Zelinsky.

The case is United States v. Julien Giraud Jr., No. 24-CR-768 (D.N.J.).

Read the brief here.

ACDL-NJ Statement on the
March 22, 2025 Presidential Memorandum
Attacking the Legal Profession

March 26, 2025 — The Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers of New Jersey (ACDL-NJ) stands with fellow lawyers and legal associations across the country in condemning the March 22, 2025 Presidential Memorandum (“Memo”) directing punitive actions against lawyers and law firms for engaging in litigation that challenges the federal government.

Last week, on March 17, we said: “We will not stand silent while elected officials attempt to bully the judiciary and our professional colleagues into submission. And we will not allow the rule of law to become collateral damage in the pursuit of political retribution. The ACDL-NJ was established more than 40 years ago to defend against just such conduct: government officials abusing their power to punish attorneys as a way to exact retribution against the attorneys' clients, and to obstruct the attorneys from doing their jobs.”

Five days later, the federal government trained its fire even more directly on the criminal defense and immigration lawyers who comprise the ACDL-NJ. The Memo makes explicit that lawyers representing clients in actions that “implicate national security, homeland security, [or] public safety” are at risk. That targets our members, who have devoted their careers to protecting individuals and companies against government violations of their Constitutional rights. Lawyers who represent immigrants, protesters, whistleblowers, or criminal defendants in cases that draw the ire of the government may find themselves blacklisted. And the Memo purports to arrogate to the government the sole discretion to recast zealous advocacy as “abuses of the legal system.”

Indeed, the Memo is especially alarming for criminal defense lawyers, because it misrepresents ethical standards in a way that directly threatens core constitutional advocacy. The very Model Rule of Professional Conduct 3.1 that the Memo selectively quotes (like New Jersey’s RPC 3.1) states plainly: “A lawyer for the defendant in a criminal proceeding may nevertheless so defend the proceeding as to require that every element of the case be established.” Comment [3] to the ABA Model Rule underscores that a “lawyer's obligations under this Rule are subordinate to federal or state constitutional law that entitles a defendant in a criminal matter to the assistance of counsel in presenting a claim or contention that otherwise would be prohibited by this Rule.” Thus, what the Memo brands as “frivolous” is often not only ethical but constitutionally required.

Equally alarming, the Order threatens to punish lawyers for conduct the government unilaterally deems “unreasonable” by directing the “termination of any Federal contract for which the relevant attorney or law firm has been hired to perform services.” It is unclear how broadly this provision will be applied—but given the sweeping and punitive nature of the Order itself, there is a real risk that the government could attempt to stretch its reach to attorneys appointed under the Criminal Justice Act (CJA), who represent indigent defendants in federal court. If so, the administration is not merely punishing disfavored firms—it is threatening the right to counsel itself.

This ongoing, calculated attack on the legal profession and the adversarial system itself cannot stand. This is not a political issue. It is a constitutional one, a threat to the foundations of our democracy. We urge all attorneys, regardless of ideology or affiliation, to oppose this threat.

The ACDL-NJ will not be silent, and we will not be intimidated. Instead, the ACDL-NJ will continue to do what it was formed to do: defend those who defend others.

ACDL-NJ Statement on Judicial Independence and the Rule of Law

March 17, 2025 – The Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers of New Jersey (ACDL-NJ) stands unequivocally in defense of judicial independence and the rule of law. As criminal defense attorneys, we are often among the most vociferous and unflinching critics of judicial decisions, because those rulings impact the liberty of our clients. Our profession exists to argue in good faith against precedent and test the limits of judicial reasoning. We do not hesitate to call out decisions we believe to be legally unsound, factually baseless, or unjust.

Such good-faith advocacy and criticism strengthens the rule of law and our system of justice. But threats, intimidation, and retaliatory measures—such as calling for the impeachment of judges solely because of their rulings—are unacceptable attacks on that system of justice. They weaken the integrity of the courts and erode the public’s trust in a fair and impartial judiciary.

The role of a judge is not to bow to political pressure or public outrage, but to faithfully apply the law—even when it results in outcomes that are unpopular or inconvenient to those in power. But at this moment in history, we find ourselves confronting an alarming reality: judges who make difficult but legally supported decisions face not just criticism, but threats to their safety and their careers. At the same time, lawyers and law firms are being targeted merely for fulfilling their professional duty to provide clients with the right to counsel afforded by the Fifth and Sixth Amendments. These threats are not abstract. They are real. They are rising. And they undermine a core principle of our democracy—that no person, regardless of wealth or power, is above the law.

As criminal defense lawyers, we will continue to fight for our clients with all the force the Constitution allows. We will continue to critique judicial decisions we believe to be wrong, unfair, or harmful to the rights of the accused. But we will not tolerate threats against judges or lawyers. We will not stand silent while elected officials attempt to bully the judiciary and our professional colleagues into submission. And we will not allow the rule of law to become collateral damage in the pursuit of political retribution. The ACDL-NJ was established more than 40 years ago to defend against just such conduct: government officials abusing their power to punish attorneys as a way to exact retribution against the attorneys' clients, and to obstruct the attorneys from doing their jobs.

The fair administration of justice depends on the strength and independence of our courts, and the ability of zealous advocates to provide counsel free of political retribution. Those who seek to dismantle that independence do so at great peril—to themselves, to their fellow citizens, and to the nation as a whole.

The ACDL-NJ calls on all attorneys, lawmakers, and citizens to reject efforts to intimidate the judiciary and the legal profession, and to stand firm in defense of the constitutional principles that safeguard our democracy.

Page updated

Report abuse

Statement of the ACDL-NJ Regarding the United States Attorney's Office for the District of New Jersey