United States v. Naviwala

In February 2025, defendant was found guilty of health care fraud and anti-kickback violations. Defendant sought to disqualify U.S. Attorney's Office for the D. N.J., arguing that attorneys appointed by A.G. after resignation of Alina Habba violated Appointments Clause. Because the attorneys were not properly designated “by Law,” the current arrangement in the USAO-NJ violates the Appropriations Clause. U.S. argues that nothing in the Constitution prevents the A.G. from determining the operation of U.S. Attorney's Office when President has not nominated U.S. Attorney confirmed by the Senate.

United States v. Naviwala

Case Details

Case Analysis

Login is required to view the Case Analysis section of the Case Tracker. This content is restricted to defense practitioners and individuals not affiliated with law enforcement or prosecutorial agencies. Please log in or create a free NACDL account to continue. NACDL members may use their existing NACDL.org credentials to access this section. Non-members will be prompted to complete a brief attestation form after logging in to confirm eligibility.

Login

Case Files

Continue reading below

Suggest a Case

Know of a federal case that departs from traditional enforcement norms? Let us know.

Suggest a Case

 

Resources

Case Tracker Feedback

Help us improve the Unusual Case Tracker by sharing your experience and suggestions.

Take Brief Survey

Supported by NFCJ

The NACDL Foundation for Criminal Justice preserves and promotes the core values of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers and the American criminal justice system.

Support Us Now

Explore keywords to find information

Featured Products