“No one is above the law.” That was the declaration this week from Alina Habba, newly minted interim U.S. attorney for New Jersey. The irony is almost too rich this is the same attorney who built her career defending Donald Trump and who once bent over backwards to keep him above the law. Now she stands at the center of a Justice Department effort that increasingly feels more about political vengeance than the impartial pursuit of justice.
It’s not just the rhetoric that’s alarming. The latest episode saw the Justice Department filing assault charges against New Jersey Congresswoman LaMonica McIver, accusing her of interfering with federal agents outside a Newark immigration detention center. Simultaneously, trespassing charges against Newark’s mayor, Ras Baraka, were dropped, suggesting a selective use of the law, depending on who’s the target of the day. Habba proudly announced the charges on X, emphasizing the principle of “impartial justice,” while claiming she sought a non-criminal resolution a claim McIver likely found laughable, given Habba’s reputation.
The spectacle becomes even more surreal considering Habba’s legal history. Known for her role as Trump’s legal attack dog including a high-profile, disastrous defense against E. Jean Carroll that ended with an $83 million verdict and a series of courtroom reprimands Habba has now been handed the power to prosecute political adversaries. The move reads less like law enforcement and more like a warning shot to Congress and anyone else who might scrutinize the administration’s actions.
Congresswoman McIver, for her part, called the charges “purely political” and accused ICE agents of provoking the clash that led to her arrest. “The charges against me are meant to criminalize and deter legislative oversight,” she stated, warning that such tactics are designed to silence dissent and shield the administration’s controversial immigration programs from scrutiny.
This pattern is not isolated. Across the country, new proposals are cropping up that would restrict public accountability in the name of “safety.” In Massachusetts, lawmakers are considering the “Halo Act,” which would bar people from filming first responders within 25 feet after a verbal warning echoing similar laws pushed in Florida. The bill would impose hefty fines and even jail time on those who refuse to comply, making it harder for citizens to document police behavior or hold authorities accountable. Unsurprisingly, the bill’s sponsors are both former police officers.
Critics argue these legal maneuvers have less to do with justice and more with protecting those in power. The message is clear: question the administration, challenge law enforcement, or try to oversee government operations, and you might find yourself on the receiving end of a criminal prosecution. In this new era, it seems the law is less a shield for the innocent and more a weapon for the well-connected.
