In a statement on social media, Habba called the ruling political. She said she would resign “to protect the stability and integrity” of the office. At the same time, she stressed that the administration would continue its appeal and that her compliance should not be read as surrender.

Her exit draws attention to the limits of temporary federal appointments and to the Senate’s power to confirm U.S. attorneys. Those posts carry broad authority over federal criminal and civil enforcement.

Temporary appointment at the center of dispute

Habba, 41, took office in March as acting U.S. attorney for the District of New Jersey. The position oversees major federal prosecutions and represents the government in civil cases.

Federal law allows the attorney general or district judges to appoint interim U.S. attorneys for limited periods when no Senate-confirmed nominee is in place. New Jersey’s two Democratic senators signaled they would oppose her confirmation, blocking a permanent appointment under long-standing Senate practice.

Earlier this month, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit ruled that Habba could not continue in the role. The court wrote that New Jersey residents and career staff in the office “deserve some clarity and stability.”

The legal fight created uncertainty in the state’s federal courts. Lawyers questioned whether prosecutions filed during her tenure might face challenges. No broad dismissals have been reported in New Jersey, but similar disputes elsewhere have disrupted pending cases.

Political profile and legal background

Before joining the Justice Department, Habba worked as a partner at a small New Jersey law firm. She became one of President Donald Trump’s most visible legal defenders. She represented him in civil cases and appeared frequently on cable news programs.

Critics pointed to her lack of prosecutorial experience and described her appointment as political. During her tenure, she filed a trespassing charge against Newark’s mayor linked to a visit to an immigration detention center; prosecutors later dropped that charge. She also charged Democratic Representative LaMonica McIver with assaulting a federal agent during the same incident. McIver denies wrongdoing, and the case remains pending.

Speaking at the White House, Trump called the resignation a “sad situation.” He criticized Senate traditions that allow home-state senators to block nominees. He suggested the administration may continue relying on short-term appointments if confirmations stall.

Wider challenges to interim prosecutors

Habba’s case forms part of a broader pattern. Courts have questioned several acting U.S. attorneys appointed during Trump’s current term.

In eastern Virginia, a judge dismissed criminal cases against former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James. The judge ruled that the interim prosecutor who filed the charges lacked lawful authority. In Nevada and Southern California, federal judges also disqualified acting U.S. attorneys Sigal Chattah and Bill Essayli after finding they exceeded statutory time limits.

In northern New York, a federal judge recently heard arguments from Letitia James that the administration improperly appointed John Sarcone as acting U.S. attorney in that district.

Attorney General Pam Bondi said Habba will stay at the Justice Department as a senior adviser. Bondi vowed to challenge the court decisions and argued that judges should not override the president’s choices for federal prosecutors.

“These judges should not be able to countermand the President’s choice of attorneys entrusted with carrying out the executive branch’s core responsibility of prosecuting crime,” Bondi said.

Ongoing legal and institutional questions

The dispute highlights a narrow but important area of federal law. Presidents can fill vacancies with acting officials, but statutes set firm time limits. Courts can review whether those limits have been respected.

When judges find violations, active prosecutions may face delays or dismissal. That risk raises practical concerns for defendants, victims and career prosecutors alike. It also sharpens the constitutional debate over the balance of power among the White House, Congress and the judiciary.

For now, three Justice Department lawyers will divide Habba’s former duties in New Jersey. Appeals are still underway, and further rulings could follow.

Her resignation restores short-term clarity to the office. The broader contest over interim appointments, however, remains unresolved.

Source: AP News – Trump’s former lawyer Alina Habba resigns as top federal prosecutor in New Jersey

The post Alina Habba Resigns as New Jersey’s Top Federal Prosecutor After Court Disqualification appeared first on Journos News - Breaking News, World News, Top Stories, Todays Headlines and Flash Reports.

Court disputes linked to the federal government shutdown have left millions of Americans uncertain about accessing November Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program payments.

Millions of Americans rely on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) to purchase groceries. This weekend, some states have begun distributing November benefits, while others remain on hold amid ongoing legal challenges stemming from the federal government shutdown.

Legal Challenges Delay Payments

The Trump administration initially announced last month that it would not fund SNAP benefits for November due to the shutdown. This decision left nearly one in eight Americans uncertain about access to vital food aid.

On Friday, several states moved to issue full monthly SNAP payments after a federal judge ordered the administration to distribute the funds. However, Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson temporarily paused the order late Friday to allow a Boston appeals court to review a potential longer-term halt. Jackson oversees emergency cases from Massachusetts, where the pause has affected some residents.

While some states continued issuing benefits, millions of SNAP recipients across the country remain in limbo.

Impact on SNAP Recipients

Nearly 42 million Americans rely on SNAP, formerly known as food stamps, to cover groceries. Most recipients earn below the poverty line, which is approximately $32,000 annually for a family of four. Individuals may receive up to $300 monthly, while families of four can receive nearly $1,000, though many households receive less based on income calculations.

The delay has increased demand at food banks, pantries, and free meal programs. Some states provided emergency funding to local organizations, while others distributed direct cash assistance from state budgets.

In North Carolina, Health and Human Services Secretary Dev Sangvai reported that over 190,000 households received just $16 or less after the state paused full payments following the Supreme Court’s temporary order.

States That Have Issued Benefits

Distribution of SNAP funds depends heavily on state-level action. Hawaii, Oregon, and Wisconsin quickly processed full benefits after the federal judge’s order.

“We moved with haste once we verified everything,” said Joseph Campos II, deputy director of Hawaii’s Department of Human Services. Oregon Governor Tina Kotek added that state employees “worked through the night” to issue November benefits.

Other states, including California, Kansas, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Washington, also confirmed that some residents received their full payments. Washington Governor Bob Ferguson said more than 250,000 households that missed early-November payments received their full benefit on Friday, with remaining recipients scheduled for later if legal barriers do not persist.

Connecticut Governor Ned Lamont reported that full benefits reached SNAP recipients by Saturday afternoon. Massachusetts Governor Maura Healey said half a million residents received payments on Saturday, with another half million scheduled for next week. Colorado distributed full benefits to about 32,000 recipients before the Supreme Court’s pause, while more than 560,000 were still awaiting funds. Rhode Island provided full benefits to roughly 79,000 households, according to Governor Dan McKee.

The Trump administration noted in a Supreme Court filing that funds already distributed cannot be recovered.

States Still Waiting for SNAP Payments

Before the Supreme Court pause, New York had planned to make full SNAP benefits available by Sunday. New Hampshire, Arizona, and Minnesota also announced upcoming distributions.

In several other states, residents may wait until next week. State officials said they are awaiting guidance from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which administers SNAP at the federal level.

Why November Benefits Were Delayed

The initial hold on SNAP benefits was a direct result of the federal government shutdown. After two judges ruled that the administration could not skip November payments entirely, the government released partial benefits using a $4.6 billion emergency reserve.

A judge later ruled that partial payments were insufficient, ordering additional funds to provide full monthly benefits. The Trump administration appealed, seeking to suspend any order requiring expenditure beyond the contingency fund. Justice Jackson’s temporary hold reflects that ongoing legal dispute, leaving millions of SNAP recipients awaiting clarity.

Source: AP News – SNAP food aid gets to people in some states while others remain in limbo amid court battles

The post SNAP Benefits Reach Some States While Others Await Federal Guidance appeared first on Journos News - Breaking News, World News, Top Stories, Todays Headlines and Flash Reports.

Trump Asserts Authority Over Potential Payouts

Speaking to reporters at the White House on Tuesday, Trump said he would have “the final say” on any decision related to compensation, suggesting the matter would ultimately “go across my desk.” He did not confirm specific figures, though The New York Times reported that two administrative claims were filed before his reelection bid seeking financial damages over prior federal inquiries.

Trump claimed he had not discussed the details with officials but reiterated his belief that “they would owe me a lot of money.” He also joked that if any taxpayer money were awarded, he could donate it or use it toward a new ballroom being built at the White House.

Claims Linked to Mar-a-Lago and Russia Investigations

The New York Times reported that Trump’s filings include two separate claims. One, submitted in August 2024, requests compensatory and punitive damages for what his lawyers described as a “malicious prosecution” tied to the 2022 FBI search of his Mar-a-Lago estate. That investigation led to criminal charges alleging he mishandled classified documents and obstructed government recovery efforts.

The second claim reportedly seeks damages related to the now-closed investigation into possible links between Trump’s 2016 campaign and Russia. The long-running inquiry concluded without charges against Trump but remains a political flashpoint that he has repeatedly denounced as baseless.

Justice Department Protocols and Potential Conflicts

The Justice Department follows established procedures to evaluate such administrative claims, often aiming to resolve disputes before they reach the courts. However, Trump’s assertion that he could personally decide on any payout raises questions about executive oversight and ethical boundaries.

One of Trump’s former defense attorneys in the Mar-a-Lago case, Todd Blanche, now serves as deputy attorney general. Another lawyer, Stanley Woodward—who represented Trump’s co-defendant and former aide Walt Nauta—is currently the associate attorney general.

“In any circumstance, all officials at the Department of Justice follow the guidance of career ethics officials,” a Justice Department spokesperson said in a statement. The White House deferred all inquiries to the DOJ.

Trump’s Past Comments on Legal Claims

During a recent White House appearance alongside Blanche, FBI Director Kash Patel, and Attorney General Pam Bondi, Trump revisited his ongoing disputes with the Justice Department. He described the situation humorously, saying, “I have a lawsuit that was doing very well, and when I became president, I said: ‘I’m suing myself.’”

He added, “I’ll say, ‘Give me X dollars,’ and I don’t know what to do with the lawsuit. It’s a great lawsuit and now I won—it looks bad. I’m suing myself, so I don’t know.”

The Times reported that the claims were filed through a formal DOJ process that enables settlements to avoid prolonged litigation.

Legal and Political Implications

The Justice Department’s review of Trump’s claims could take months, with any potential settlement requiring internal approval and ethical review. Legal experts note that a sitting president’s involvement in personal claims against federal agencies could present a complex conflict of interest, as it blurs lines between executive authority and personal financial interest.

Trump’s previous legal battles with the federal government, particularly over classified documents, were among the most high-profile investigations of his presidency. Special counsel Jack Smith, who led the Mar-a-Lago probe, dropped related criminal charges in November 2024, citing DOJ policy against indicting a sitting president.

While Trump has framed the cases as politically motivated attempts to derail his return to office, Justice Department officials maintain that their actions followed established legal standards and internal oversight.

Ongoing Review and Public Transparency

As of Wednesday, the status of Trump’s claims and any potential settlement discussions remain unclear. Neither the Justice Department nor the White House has provided a timeline for resolution. Analysts suggest the outcome could influence broader discussions on presidential accountability, executive privilege, and the handling of federal investigations involving elected officials.

Source: AP News – Trump says he’d have final say on money he seeks over past federal investigations into his conduct

The post US President insists any settlement decision must go through him, citing ongoing claims tied to Mar-a-Lago search and Russia inquiry. appeared first on Journos News - Breaking News, World News, Top Stories, Todays Headlines and Flash Reports.

A Nevada court commissioner has rejected media mogul Rupert Murdoch’s attempt to modify the family trust governing his vast media empire, echoing the intense power struggles depicted in the TV series Succession.

The Battle for Control

The case revolved around Murdoch, 93, and his eldest son, Lachlan, seeking to secure sole control of News Corp and Fox News after Murdoch’s death. The proposed changes would have minimized interference from Murdoch’s three other adult children—Prudence, Elisabeth, and James.

However, the court found the attempt to amend the 1999 family trust to be a “carefully crafted charade,” ruling that Murdoch and Lachlan had acted in “bad faith,” according to The New York Times.

Family Divided

In response, Prudence, Elisabeth, and James issued a joint statement welcoming the ruling and expressing hope for reconciliation:

“We welcome Commissioner Gorman’s decision and hope that we can move beyond this litigation to focus on strengthening and rebuilding relationships among all family members.”

Murdoch’s attorney, Adam Streisand, expressed disappointment with the decision and announced plans to appeal.

Echoes of Fiction

The Murdoch family’s real-life tensions were reportedly heightened after an episode of HBO’s Succession—a series inspired in part by their empire—featured the patriarch’s sudden death, leading to chaos among his heirs. This spurred Elisabeth’s representative to draft a “Succession memo” aimed at avoiding such turmoil.

Murdoch’s youngest daughters, Grace and Chloe, from his later marriages, do not hold voting rights under the trust, further narrowing the power dynamics to his eldest four children.

Legacy at Stake

The battle centers not on wealth but on control of a media empire that spans influential outlets like The Times, The Sun, and The Wall Street Journal, as well as Fox News. Differences in political and ideological leanings among the children have exacerbated family tensions, with Lachlan seen as more conservative and aligned with his father’s vision.

Since the 1960s, Murdoch has cultivated a media dynasty with global influence. He groomed his sons for leadership from a young age, emphasizing the importance of family in shaping the future of his empire.

What’s Next?

While the commissioner’s ruling is a significant setback for Murdoch and Lachlan, it is not final. A district judge will review the case and could issue a different decision.

For now, the court’s decision underscores the fragility of dynastic succession in the face of personal and ideological divides, leaving the future of the Murdoch empire in question.

Source

The post Court Blocks Rupert Murdoch’s Attempt to Alter Family Trust appeared first on Journos News - Breaking News, World News, Top Stories, Todays Headlines and Flash Reports.

The post Diddy’s Lawyers Accuse Prosecutors of Improperly Seizing Materials from His Jail Cell appeared first on Journos News - Breaking News, World News, Top Stories, Todays Headlines and Flash Reports.