Matt, it's good to see you.

I mean, you've been following this case closely.

Can you just walk us through how Alina Haba, who's best known as President Trump's former personal attorney, landed in this role and how this case wound up before a Pennsylvania federal judge?

It really was kind of a shock when the president announced that Alina Haba would become the interim attorney for New Jersey, effective immediately.

Those two words, effective immediately, have a sort of relevance in this case because there's a bit of a dispute over exactly what day she became interim U.S. attorney.

But she was his personal attorney, actually, by most accounts had not done a very good job.

I mean, she had been sanctioned by judges.

She had lost some cases with them.

I mean, she had been heavily sanctioned by judges.

And in New Jersey, she was really known for a controversy involving an employee at Bedminster who was suing for sexual harassment and alleged Alina Haba befriended her and convinced her to sign an illegal nondisclosure agreement and accept a sum of like fifteen thousand dollars in order not to sue.

She later settled that lawsuit.

So it was kind of a shock.

Doug Steinhardt had initially been the choice.

The state senator had initially been the choice for U.S. attorney in New Jersey, and he dropped out with uncertainty over whether he could be confirmed to the role.

It's clear that Alina Haba has almost no chance of confirmation.

But what the Trump administration is currently doing are legal maneuvers to try to keep her in the role basically indefinitely without confirmation from the Senate.

So what was your sense sitting in that courtroom about any skepticism this judge, Judge Brand, might have had about these legal maneuvers that you're referencing?

So it could be hard at times whether he's asking the question as devil's advocate or expressing his own opinion as to the merits of an argument.

So with that caveat in there, it was very hard to read how he felt about designating Haba as acting U.S. attorney after her role as interim U.S. attorney expired.

And they did that through a maneuver by firing the first assistant U.S. attorney, a widely respected person who Haba had actually appointed to that role, and placing Haba in there so she would automatically assume the U.S. attorney, acting U.S. attorney position.

That acting U.S. attorney position has a further time limit on it of 210 days.

Now, I had a hard time reading where the judge came down on that maneuver.

But where he seemed by his questioning and also a previous opinion he had written a couple of weeks ago, he seemed especially skeptical of another argument from the Trump administration, which is that, which is that that Alina Haba has been appointed special attorney and that- Why does that distinction matter?

Yeah.

Because there's no timeline on this.

There's no time limit on a special attorney.

So they're basically saying she can be in charge of the office, even if her title isn't technically acting U.S. attorney, once that time expires for an unlimited amount of time.

And this is what the judge really seemed skeptical of based on his line of questioning.

He was basically saying, if that's the case and you can have someone in there effectively permanently without Senate confirmation, then what's the point of the law that even limits them?

Or what's the point of even appointing one of confirmation?

And I think what really speaks to that is there was a law passed in 2006.

It was an update to the Patriot Act that did make interim U.S. attorneys permanent.

That law, following a U.S. attorney scandal, if you're old like me, you might remember this scandal in 2006, where there was a lot of questions about politicization of U.S. attorneys.

Congress actually went back and reinstated the 120 day limit on interim U.S. attorney appointments.

And so there's a very clear argument and one that I think the judge also took seriously, that clearly congressional intent is that these people have limits on their tenure.

The judge, however, said he's a textualist.

And so even if he agrees that the congressional intent is in there, he's reading the law for what it is.

And so this is where it gets very complicated.

Yeah, I found that that quote striking as well.

Where does it go from here?

I know Judge Brand said he might issue ruling as early as Wednesday, but also he seemed to indicate that the government will appeal right away.

So is this the end?

Either side will appeal.

This is definitely not the end.

Whoever loses this will appeal.

And after it goes through the appellate court, most lawyers I've talked to think this winds up at the Supreme Court because it really is, in a lot of ways, an unprecedented situation.

And I think it's worth noting that what really struck me about this hearing was the Trump administration claiming it was the judges who had created a constitutional crisis, because as I said, 120 days runs up.

The law says that the judges can decide who the interim U.S. attorney will be until someone is confirmed by the rule.

That is what the law very clearly says.

No dispute about that.

The Trump administration is arguing that by exercising their power under that law to appoint Desiree Grace, again, very respective veteran of that office, to the interim position instead of Haba, that they've created a constitutional crisis.

The law literally says they can do it.

What's not clearly in the law, and we'll see if it's legal or not, is the maneuvering the Trump administration is doing.

Yeah, and we should note that's why the case was not heard in New Jersey and was in Pennsylvania.

Matt Friedman, thanks so much for your great reporting.

Thanks for coming on the show to share it with us.

We appreciate it.

Thank you, Brianna.

Thank you.

[MUSIC]