House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries has landed in hot water with conservative activists over his bold call to oust U.S. Attorney Alina Habba.
According to Fox News, the controversy centers on Jeffries’ public demand for federal judges in New Jersey to remove Habba after she charged Rep. LaMonica McIver, D-N.J., with obstructing Homeland Security agents during a tense encounter at an immigration facility in Newark on May 9.
Let’s rewind to the incident that sparked this political firestorm. On that day, McIver, alongside two other members of Congress, was reportedly conducting a congressional oversight visit at Delaney Hall during an immigration protest when a clash erupted with federal agents. According to a Department of Justice release, Newark Mayor Ras Baraka entered a secured area, ignored warnings to leave, and faced arrest—only for McIver to allegedly intervene physically, blocking officers and striking them.
McIver now faces serious charges, with two counts carrying up to eight years each in prison and a third up to one year. She has pleaded not guilty and is set for trial on November 10. For conservatives, this looks like a clear-cut case of accountability, not persecution.
Enter Alina Habba, who was appointed acting U.S. Attorney by Attorney General Pam Bondi in March. A known legal advisor to former President Donald Trump, her Senate confirmation has stalled, yet a decision by a majority of New Jersey’s district court judges—15 of 17 nominated by Democratic presidents—could secure her position through the Trump presidency. That looming Monday decision has conservatives on edge, wondering if politics will trump justice.
Jeffries didn’t hold back, posting on X, “Habba is a woefully unqualified political hack.” He doubled down, insisting she “must be rejected” by the judges. But is this a principled stand or a partisan overreach to shield a colleague?
The Article III Project, a Republican legal activist group, isn’t buying Jeffries’ rhetoric, firing off a letter to the House Ethics Committee accusing him of “clear corruption.” They argue that a House leader meddling in an active criminal case by pressuring judges to fire a U.S. Attorney crosses a dangerous ethical line.
Their complaint pulls no punches, stating a House member “abuses his official position” when strong-arming judges for political gain. For those wary of unchecked power, this raises a valid question: Should congressional leaders be playing judge and jury in ongoing cases?
Jeffries, unfazed, scoffed at the accusation to Fox News, asking if anyone thinks “that’s a serious complaint” from a “right-wing extreme group.” He added defiantly, “If I said it, I meant it.” Yet, dismissing critics as extremists doesn’t erase the concern that his actions could undermine judicial independence.
On the flip side, the liberal watchdog group Campaign for Accountability has filed its own complaint against Habba, alleging she targeted McIver and Baraka out of political spite for their opposition to Trump’s views. It’s a messy accusation, but without hard evidence, it risks sounding like the very partisanship they decry.
Habba’s role as a Trump advisor undeniably colors perceptions of her decisions. Still, conservatives might argue that enforcing the law isn’t retaliation—it’s her job, regardless of who’s on the receiving end.
Meanwhile, the House Ethics Committee has the Article III Project’s letter but may choose to ignore it, especially since no formal complaint was filed with the Office of Congressional Conduct for preliminary review. This procedural hiccup could let Jeffries off the hook, though the optics remain troubling for those who value separation of powers.
What’s at stake here isn’t just one politician or prosecutor—it’s the principle of whether elected officials should meddle in active legal proceedings. For conservatives skeptical of progressive overreach, Jeffries’ actions smell like an attempt to bend the justice system to protect allies.
As this saga unfolds, the clash at Delaney Hall serves as a microcosm of deeper tensions over immigration policy, federal authority, and political accountability. McIver’s trial will likely keep this story alive, but the bigger question is whether leaders like Jeffries can resist the temptation to play politics with the courts.
