DOJ Tries Acting Normal In New Jersey

Above the Law

by Liz Dye

February 19, 2026

AI-Generated Deep Dive Summary

The Department of Justice (DOJ) has made a notable shift in New Jersey by adhering to court orders, marking a departure from its previous approach under former Acting US Attorney Alina Habba, who was known for her confrontational tactics. This change came after judges grew frustrated with the DOJ’s defiance, particularly over immigration policies. In response, the DOJ appointed a team of three neutral lawyers to lead the New Jersey office, signaling a more compliant stance. The move gained attention due to a case involving Jordan Fox, a special attorney, who submitted a declaration outlining 56 instances where the DOJ had violated court orders in immigration cases. This included failing to grant bond hearings and late filings. Unlike Habba’s tenure, which often disregarded judicial rulings, Fox acknowledged the court’s authority and committed to compliance. This shift is significant as it highlights the tension between executive branch actions and judicial independence. By following court directives, the DOJ avoids potential contempt findings and maintains credibility in ongoing immigration cases. The situation underscores the delicate balance between enforcing federal policies and adhering to judicial decisions, a critical issue for legal professionals and policymakers. The DOJ’s change in approach also reflects broader challenges in immigration enforcement, where courts are grappling with thousands of similar cases. By complying with court orders, the DOJ may reduce delays and streamline the process, ultimately benefiting both immigrants and the legal system. This shift could set a precedent for other agencies facing similar disputes over federal authority and judicial oversight.

Verticals

legalnews

Originally published on Above the Law on 2/19/2026