Noted legal mind Alan Dershowitz has dropped a bombshell assessment on the removal of interim U.S. Attorney Alina Habba from the District of New Jersey. His four-word verdict, “as unconstitutional as anything,” cuts to the heart of a brewing controversy over judicial overreach.
According to Daily Caller, a panel of federal judges, predominantly appointed by former Presidents Barack Obama and Joe Biden, ousted Habba on Monday following pressure from House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries. Dershowitz, speaking on his podcast “The Dershow,” argued this move blatantly exceeds the constitutional limits of judicial authority.
Habba, nominated by President Donald Trump, was replaced by Desiree Leigh Grace, a choice made directly by the judges. Dershowitz contends this action violates the separation of powers, a cornerstone of our constitutional framework, by allowing judges to meddle in executive appointments.
Dershowitz didn’t mince words on his podcast, stating, “Let me be very clear that is as unconstitutional as anything could possibly be.” His point is sharp: the framers never intended for judges to wield a veto over presidential nominations, and this sets a dangerous precedent for unchecked judicial power.
History shows presidents often appoint trusted allies to key roles, as Dershowitz noted with examples like Ronald Reagan naming his personal lawyer as attorney general and John Kennedy selecting his brother. If loyalty to a president now becomes grounds for judicial dismissal, what’s to stop future courts from rewriting the executive branch entirely?
The judges’ decision, while backed by a congressional statute, still reeks of partisan maneuvering, especially given the timing after Jeffries’ demand. This isn’t about justice; it’s about flexing muscle in a way that undermines the very structure of our government.
Dershowitz also tackled the statute head-on, calling it “unconstitutional” despite its legal backing. He argues Congress cannot grant judges powers beyond what the Constitution allows, a view that carries weight given the clear delineation of roles in our founding document.
His prediction is bold: if the Trump administration challenges this removal, it could win unanimously at the Supreme Court. “There isn’t a single justice who will find any justification for allowing judges to decide who should be appointed,” he insisted, signaling a potential legal showdown.
Attorney General Pam Bondi swiftly countered the judges’ move by removing Grace, the court’s pick to replace Habba. This rapid response suggests the administration isn’t ready to let this precedent stand without a fight.
The backdrop to Habba’s ouster adds another layer of friction, as she faced criticism from Democrats after Rep. LaMonica McIver of New Jersey was charged with assaulting an ICE agent in May at a Newark facility. While this incident didn’t directly cause her removal, it fueled the political heat surrounding her tenure.
Democrats may argue Habba’s ties to Trump made her unfit, but Dershowitz’s critique flips that narrative: the real issue is judges stepping into a role they were never meant to play. If personal or political disagreements justify such drastic overreach, no presidential appointee is safe from judicial whim.
This isn’t just about one attorney; it’s about who gets to call the shots in our system. When judges start picking winners in executive roles, the balance of power tilts in a way that should alarm anyone who values constitutional integrity.
Dershowitz’s final word, “It’s unconstitutional,” echoes as a warning to those watching this unfold. The issue transcends party lines; it’s a question of whether we’ll allow the judiciary to rewrite the rules of governance on a partisan whim.
If this stands, the door opens to a future where judges, not elected officials, shape the executive branch based on their own biases or political pressures. That’s not the republic our founders envisioned, and it’s a slope too slippery to ignore.
The Trump administration now faces a choice: challenge this in court and risk a broader fight, or let it slide and cede ground to judicial overreach. Either way, this saga is a stark reminder that the Constitution isn’t just a document; it’s a shield against power grabs, and it’s under strain in New Jersey right now.
