Habba set to remain as top prosecutor in New Jersey after White House maneuver
Andrew Harnik/Getty Images
(WASHINGTON) — President Donald Trump’s attempt to ensure his pick remains in charge of the U.S. Attorney’s Office in New Jersey has taken a new twist.
On Thursday, one day before Alina Habba’s tenure as the Interim United States Attorney for the District of New Jersey was set to expire, the White House withdrew her nomination for the post.
Habba then announced on social media that she is now the Acting United States Attorney, seemingly restarting the clock on what is usually a 120-day temporary term. Trump first appointed Habba as the state’s interim U.S. attorney in March.
“I don’t cower to pressure. I don’t answer to politics. This is a fight for justice. And I’m all in,” Habba wrote on social media.
The unorthodox legal maneuver appears to end a stalemate that began when federal judges in New Jersey selected Desiree Leigh Grace, an experienced federal prosecutor, over Habba, the president’s former personal attorney and choice to lead the office. The Department of Justice quickly stated that it fired Grace, leaving unclear who would take over the office.
In a social media post, Grace stated that she would still be willing to lead the office “in accordance with the law.”
“The District Judges for the District of New Jersey selected me to serve as the United States Attorney for the District of New Jersey. It will forever be the greatest honor that they selected me on merit, and I’m prepared to follow that Order and begin to serve in accordance with the law,” she wrote.
The Trump administration’s move to pull Habba’s nomination and then install her in an acting capacity appears to take advantage of a section of the Federal Vacancies Reform Act, which allows an acting officer to serve in a position for no more than 210 days if no one is nominated to the position.
(WASHINGTON) — Republican Sen. Thom Tillis’ decision not to seek reelection is jolting what was already expected to be a fierce battle in North Carolina to either challenge him or flip his seat, which will now be wide open in 2026.
Without Tillis on the ballot, Republicans have been floating their ideal candidate to hold onto their slim majority in the Senate, many of whom are less critical of President Donald Trump than Tillis, including allies Michael Whatley, chairman of the GOP, and the president’s daughter-in-law, Lara Trump.
A Republican National Committee official waved ABC News off the notion that Whatley, who used to lead the North Carolina GOP, was leaving his post, saying that Whatley currently has no plans to look at another office for the time being.
“Chairman Whatley is focused on serving the president and working with his team to protect and expand our Republican majorities in the midterms,” the official, who was granted anonymity to discuss deliberations, said.
Lara Trump, who also faces mounting external pressure to run in her native North Carolina, told Fox News Radio on Monday that she would certainly consider the possibility.
“North Carolina is my home state. It’s where I was born and raised. It made me the person I am today…if it works out and the timing works, and it works out for my family, it is absolutely something that I would consider doing,” she explained.
President Trump told reporters on Tuesday that he’d be excited for his daughter-in-law to run: “Somebody that would really be great is Lara. She grew up there … Lara Trump, I mean, that would always be my first choice.”
But he added later that he hasn’t talked to her directly about the potential bid, and that other Republicans could be successful, too.
“I don’t know who the candidates are going to be. I think you can have one of the congressmen step up,” he said.
Lara Trump, who ruled out a Senate run in Florida earlier in the year, would likely be the frontrunner if she entered. Other potential contenders, like Rep. Pat Harrigan said Tuesday in a post on X that he would back Lara Trump if she chose to run.
“There’s lots of excitement around the 2026 Senate race, but let me be crystal clear about something: if @LaraLeaTrump enters this race, I’ll be the first to endorse her and the first to fight for her victory,” Harrigan wrote.
In addition to Trump, other North Carolina Republicans who could be considering Senate bids including Reps. Greg Murphy and Addison McDowell, sources familiar with the situation told ABC News. North Carolina Rep. Richard Hudson, who chairs the campaign arm of House Republicans, said on Tuesday he would not run.
Regardless of the candidate, the North Carolina GOP said in a statement it feels confident that another Republican will take Tillis’ place.
“Senator Tillis has announced his decision to not seek re-election to the U.S. Senate and we wish him well in his retirement from public service. As we move forward into the midterm elections, we will hold this seat for Republicans in 2026 and continue to deliver on President Trump’s America First priorities,” North Carolina GOP Chairman Jason Simmons said.
Democrats disagree and find Tillis’ retirement an opportunity to make up for ground the lost in 2024. Former U.S. Rep. Wiley Nickel has already announced a run, and wrote on X on Sunday, “Thom Tillis is out. No matter which MAGA loyalist Trump picks, I’m the only Democrat in this race and I’m ready to win.”
Yet the candidate atop North Carolina Democrats’ wish list is their former governor, Roy Cooper. A spokesperson for Cooper told ABC News he’s strongly considering a run and will announce his decision “in the coming weeks.
Anderson Clayton, the chair of the North Carolina Democratic Party, told ABC News in an interview Monday that as she has been “going around the state and going around all my different counties, what I’ve heard the most from folks is that they would love to see Governor Cooper get in this race.”
But Clayton, even as she praised Cooper’s strong approval ratings and the desire among many for him to run, pointed to a “bench” of others she said were strong candidates, including Nickel and Lt. Gov. Rachel Hunt. A spokesperson for Hunt’s lieutenant governor campaign told ABC News that Hunt believes Cooper will run but that “if the field shifts, she’ll give it thoughtful consideration.”
Clayton said she believes Democrats will handily flip the seat no matter who is on the ticket.
“I think that the Republican Party is running away from Thom Tillis, which is what we saw from the announcement [Sunday] … We immediately saw the president deciding that he was going to find a primary challenger for Tillis. And I think it shows that North Carolina Democrats are in a prime position to be able to take this seat, especially now that it’s an open seat,” she said.
She said the party had also seen an influx in donations and volunteers since Tillis announced his retirement.
Cooper would be “a real powerhouse” if he decided to enter the race, Davidson College political science professor Susan Roberts told ABC News. She contrasted Cooper with the progressive New York Assembly member Zohran Mamdani, the presumptive Democratic primary nominee for mayor of New York City.
“[Cooper] may not be the shiniest object [or] have the campaign that helped Mamdani in the New York mayor’s primary, he may not have that shiny social media presence, but I think he has the gravitas to be a good candidate, and I think he would know how to govern,” Roberts said.
Mac McCorkle, a professor at Duke University’s Sanford School of Public Policy, said Lara Trump’s powerful name recognition could clear the Republican primary field.
“The other Republicans who were thinking about it are kind of no-names,” McCorkle said. “I think it’s Lara Trump’s to refuse.”
He said while less-known candidates might need to take positions heavily to the right to win over “the MAGA base” in the primary, Lara Trump’s connection to President Trump could help her gain support without having to do so, making her more appealing to moderate voters later on in the general election.
On the other hand, Jason Roberts, a political science professor at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, saw Lara Trump’s family connection to the president as a potential disadvantage.
“Midterm elections typically don’t go well for the president’s party, because the out-party is fired up. The in-party typically doesn’t have as high a turnout,” Roberts said. “What successful presidential party candidates do in a midterm is they try to distinguish themselves from that president. And if you’re running a candidate whose last name is Trump, that’s going to be really, really difficult to do.”
ABC News’ Hannah Demissie and Benjamin Siegel contributed to this report.
(WASHINGTON) — The Trump administration is urging the New York-based Court of International Trade to delay its order blocking President Donald Trump’s sweeping tariffs, warning that enforcement of the ruling will cause a “foreign policy disaster scenario.”
In an opinion on Wednesday, the three-judge panel struck down Trump’s global tariffs as “contrary to law.”
The judges found that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act — which Trump used to enact his tariffs — does not give him the “unlimited” power to levy tariffs like the president has in recent months.
“The President’s assertion of tariff-making authority in the instant case, unbounded as it is by any limitation in duration or scope, exceeds any tariff authority delegated to the President under IEEPA. The Worldwide and Retaliatory tariffs are thus ultra vires and contrary to law,” the judges wrote.
According to the judges, Congress, not the president, has the authority to impose tariffs under most circumstances, and Trump’s tariffs do not meet the limited condition of an “unusual and extraordinary threat” that would allow him to act alone.
The Department of Justice on Thursday requested a stay, saying it’s needed “to avoid immediate irreparable harm to United States foreign policy and national security.”
“It is critical, for the country’s national security and the President’s conduct of ongoing, delicate diplomatic efforts, that the Court stay its judgment. The harm to the conduct of foreign affairs from the relief ordered by the Court could not be greater,” lawyers with the Department of Justice argued.
According to the administration, the court order would strip the president of leverage in trade negotiations, imperil the trade deals already reached, and make the country vulnerable to countries that “feel a renewed boldness to take advantage of” the current situation.
Responding to the ruling, White House spokesman Kush Desai evoked the trade deficit and said, “It is not for unelected judges to decide how to properly address a national emergency,” adding that that the administration is committed to using “every lever of executive power to address this crisis.”
The Trump administration had quickly filed a notice of appeal to challenge Wednesday’s decision.
The case now heads to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit where they could ask for a stay of the order.
The Court of International Trade issued the decision across two cases — one filed by a group of small businesses and another filed by 12 Democratic attorneys general.
Nevada Attorney General Aaron Ford called the ruling “a win for the rule of law and for Nevadans’ pocketbooks.”
“I am extremely pleased with the court’s decision to strike down these tariffs; they were both unlawful and economically destructive,” he said. “The president had no legal authority to impose these tariffs, and his unlawful actions would have caused billions of dollars of damage to the American economy.”
Since Trump announced sweeping tariffs on more than 50 countries in April, his administration has faced half a dozen lawsuits challenging the president’s ability to impose tariffs without the approval of Congress.
New York Attorney General Letitia James called the decision a “major victory for our efforts to uphold the law and protect New Yorkers from illegal policies that threaten American jobs and economy.”
“The law is clear: no president has the power to single-handedly raise taxes whenever they like. These tariffs are a massive tax hike on working families and American businesses that would have led to more inflation, economic damage to businesses of all sizes, and job losses across the country if allowed to continue,” James’ statement continued.
Lawyers for the small businesses alleged that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act — which Trump invoked to impose the tariffs — does not give the president the right to issue “across-the-board worldwide tariffs,” and that Trump’s justification for the tariffs was invalid.
“His claimed emergency is a figment of his own imagination,” the lawsuit said. “Trade deficits, which have persisted for decades without causing economic harm, are not an emergency.”
During a hearing earlier this month, a group of three judges — who were appointed by presidents Obama, Trump and Reagan — pushed a lawyer for the small businesses to provide a legal basis to override the tariffs. While a different court in the 1970s determined that the Trading with the Enemy Act of 1917 — the law that preceded the International Emergency Economic Powers Act — gave the president the right to impose tariffs, no court has weighed whether the president can impose tariffs unilaterally under the IEEPA.
During a May 13 hearing, Jeffrey Schwab, a lawyer from the conservative Liberty Justice Center representing the plaintiffs, argued that Trump’s purported emergency to justify the tariffs is far short of what is required under the law.
“I’m asking this court to be an umpire and call a strike; you’re asking me, well, where’s the strike zone? Is it at the knees or slightly below the knees?” Schwab argued. “I’m saying it’s a wild pitch and it’s on the other side of the batter and hits the backstop, so we don’t need to debate that.”
The ruling marks the first time a federal court has issued a ruling on the legality of Trump’s tariffs. In May, a federal judge in Florida nominated by Trump suggested the president has the authority to unilaterally impose tariffs, but opted to transfer the case to the Court of International Trade.
-ABC News’ Hannah Demissie contributed to this report.
(WASHINGTON) — The Supreme Court ruled Friday that a Texas law that mandated websites with “sexual material harmful to minors” have age verification is constitutional.
The court’s conservative judges ruled 6-3.
An adult entertainment industry trade group challenged a 2023 Texas law that requires sites with more than a third of content containing “sexual material harmful to minors” must receive electronic proof that a patron is 18 or older.
The law requires users to provide digital ID, government-issued ID or other commercially reasonable verification methods, such as a facial scan or credit card transaction data.
The court’s decision only affects the Texas law — not similar laws instituted in other states.
The trade group alleged the verification law uniquely threatens individual privacy and data security for millions of adults who otherwise have a First Amendment right to view the material.
Justice Clarence Thomas, writing for the majority, ruled that “the decades-long history of some pornographic websites requiring age verification refutes any argument that the chill of verification is an insurmountable obstacle for users.”
“The statute advances the State’s important interest in shielding children from sexually explicit content. And, it is appropriately tailored because it permits users to verify their ages through the established methods of providing government-issued identification and sharing transactional data,” he wrote in his decision to uphold the Fifth Circuit’s ruling that sided with the state.
Justice Elena Kagan wrote in her dissent that while protecting children from explicit online material is an important task, the state could have accomplished its objectives and “better protect adults’ First Amendment freedoms.”
“Many reasonable people, after all, view the speech at issue here as ugly and harmful for any audience. But the First Amendment protects those sexually explicit materials, for every adult. So a State cannot target that expression, as Texas has here, any more than is necessary to prevent it from reaching children,” she wrote.
Kagan — joined in her dissent by justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson — said no one disagrees with the paramount importance of protecting children from viewing porn but asks “what if Texas could do better?”
“What if Texas could achieve its interest without so interfering with adults constitutionally protected rights in viewing the speech that HB 1181 covers?”
This is a developing story. Please check back for updates.
