When Julien Giraud Jr. was federally indicted on drug and gun charges last year in New Jersey, he had little reason to think his case would double as a challenge to the lawfulness of Alina Habba’s position as U.S. attorney. But that challenge is now playing out, as the defendant argues that the Trump ally isn’t lawfully serving in her position and therefore the office she purports to lead lacks the authority to prosecute him.....

So what’s Giraud’s argument? In a motion filed Sunday ahead of his trial set for next week, his lawyer Thomas Mirigliano wrote that Habba’s reappointment violated federal law because the fact that Trump submitted Habba’s nomination to the Senate prevents her from serving in an acting capacity, regardless of whether Trump subsequently withdrew her nomination or not. He argued that being prosecuted by an unauthorized U.S. attorney undermines his due process rights, so he asked U.S. District Judge Edward Kiel, the New Jersey judge handling his case, to dismiss the indictment or at least to block Habba or any prosecutor acting under her authority from prosecuting him.

The New York Times reported that federal court proceedings throughout New Jersey “were abruptly canceled on Monday because of uncertainty over” Habba’s authority, citing Giraud’s case and others. Habba is one of several lawyers who represented Trump in his personal capacity and have gone on to high-ranking Justice Department posts during his second term.

After Giraud filed his motion, the chief judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit, which covers New Jersey and nearby states, tapped Pennsylvania’s chief federal trial judge for the state’s middle district, Matthew Brann, to preside over the matter. The chief circuit judge made the move under a law that says chief circuit judges “may, in the public interest, designate and assign temporarily any district judge of the circuit to hold a district court in any district within the circuit.”.....

Brann ordered a status conference with the parties to take place Tuesday afternoon at 3:00 p.m., so the direction in which the matter is headed could become clearer later Tuesday. Whatever happens at the trial court level might not be the last word on this consequential and thorny issue, so this could be just the start of drawn-out litigation.