Staff Reports
On December 1, 2025, a federal appeals court took the extraordinary step of disqualifying Alina Habba from serving as the U.S. Attorney for the District of New Jersey — a move that should alarm every American who believes in the separation of powers and the will of the voters. This unanimous panel found procedural violations in how the administration kept her in office, and the ruling instantly handed the left-wing legal establishment a victory over a Trump-appointed prosecutor.
The judges relied on technical readings of the Federal Vacancies Reform Act to say Habba’s interim authority had expired and that district judges could name a replacement, a decision critics say weaponizes arcane rules to override presidential prerogative. The court’s decision echoed an earlier district judge’s conclusion that Habba had been unlawfully serving after her 120-day interim term ended, setting up a collision between the judiciary and the elected executive.
The Justice Department’s response — firing the court-appointed replacement and doubling down on Habba — exposed the chaotic, slap-and-spin politics inside Washington. Attorney General Pam Bondi and administration spokespeople blasted the judges as “politically minded” and accused them of trying to thwart the president’s constitutional authority, a fight that will now almost certainly move up the appeals chain. The spectacle of judges and bureaucrats trading constitutional invective is exactly why voters want reform, not more judicial fiat.
Make no mistake: Habba was no neutral career prosecutor. She was President Trump’s personal lawyer, openly political and unapologetic about using the office to go after corrupt local leaders and to push back against safely predictable Democratic soft spots. Her critics seized on that background to argue she lacked prosecutorial experience and acted with partisan intent, but the deeper issue is whether unelected judges should be able to veto political choices made by the White House.
Americans tired of the swamp should see this as another chapter in the soft coup waged by a legal elite that claims neutrality while openly reshaping power away from voters. If the judiciary can simply strip a president’s pick because the pick is uncomfortable to entrenched interests, then the next administration’s nominees will be hollowed out before confirmation hearings ever begin. Conservatives should demand clearer rules that protect executive appointments from activist judges hiding behind proceduralism.
Alina Habba has sworn she will fight the ouster and has vowed to take the battle as high as necessary, and patriots who want prosecutors who enforce the law rather than play politics ought to stand with her. This is not merely about one prosecutor in one state; it is about restoring balance between the branches and stopping a legal class that thinks it can rewrite the Constitution on a case-by-case basis. The next steps will matter: if the administration appeals, this might be the moment conservatives rally behind structural fixes rather than just outrage.
