The legal and political landscape surrounding the Trump administration continues to draw intense scrutiny, as recent court hearings and filings reveal a complex web of appointments, prosecutions, and allegations of political motivation at the highest levels of the U.S. justice system. Over the past week, three major developments have underscored the deepening controversies: the federal prosecution of former FBI Director James Comey, the embattled tenure of Alina Habba as New Jersey’s top federal prosecutor, and renewed calls for investigations into the handling of former President Donald Trump’s own legal cases.
On October 19, 2025, former federal prosecutor Andrew Cherkasky made headlines by asserting that the prosecution of President Donald Trump was "clearly driven by political motives," according to his appearance on Fox Report. Cherkasky called for the Department of Justice to investigate former special counsel Jack Smith, whose high-profile pursuit of Trump has long been a lightning rod for partisan debate. "The prosecution of President Trump was clearly driven by politics," Cherkasky insisted, demanding greater accountability and transparency from those overseeing the process.
While Cherkasky’s comments added fuel to a simmering debate over the politicization of the justice system, another drama was unfolding in a Philadelphia courtroom. On October 20, 2025, the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals convened to examine the Trump administration’s efforts to retain Alina Habba as New Jersey’s U.S. attorney—a role with sweeping authority over both criminal and civil cases in the state. Habba, who previously served as Trump’s personal lawyer and briefly as a White House adviser, was present for the hearing, which was presided over by Judges D. Brooks Smith, Luis Felipe Restrepo, and D. Michael Fisher.
The hearing was anything but routine. Judge Smith wasted no time raising constitutional concerns about the unusual sequence of events that led to Habba’s appointment. "Would you concede that the sequence of events here—and for me, they’re unusual—would you concede there are serious constitutional implications to your theory here?" Smith pressed, characterizing the administration’s maneuvering as a "complete circumvention of the appointment’s clause." Henry Whitaker, representing the government, defended Attorney General Pam Bondi’s decision to appoint Habba to simultaneous roles as "special attorney" and acting U.S. attorney, asserting, "We colored inside the lines here." Yet, when asked for historical precedent, Whitaker admitted he could not name a similar situation involving a U.S. attorney.
After the hearing, Habba spoke out, framing her fight as a broader battle for fairness in federal appointments. In a statement posted to X, she said, "When millions of Americans voted for a change in leadership in November, they voted for a new direction. That choice should not be undermined by political obstruction in Congress or by criminal defendants." Habba also lamented that she had not spoken with New Jersey’s Democratic senators, Cory Booker and Andy Kim, despite reaching out. "That is not how the process should work in a functioning democracy," she said, highlighting the partisan gridlock that has characterized many recent judicial appointments.
The controversy over Habba’s appointment is rooted in a series of legal and personnel maneuvers that U.S. District Judge Matthew Brann described in August 2025 as "novel." Brann ruled that Habba was not lawfully serving as U.S. attorney for New Jersey and suggested that actions she took since July could be declared void, though he stayed his order pending appeal. The government, for its part, argued that Habba was validly serving under a federal statute that allows a first assistant attorney—her initial appointment by the Trump administration—to fill the role. The dispute intensified when federal judges in New Jersey replaced Habba with a career prosecutor, only for Attorney General Bondi to fire that replacement and reinstate Habba. Brann’s ruling underscored that presidential appointments remain subject to statutory time limits and power-sharing requirements.
Habba’s tenure has not been without controversy. She brought charges against Newark Mayor Ras Baraka and Democratic U.S. Rep. LaMonica McIver, with the latter’s assault case still pending. Both cases were notable for targeting sitting Democratic officials, an unusual step for a federal prosecutor. Habba’s earlier comments about hoping to "turn New Jersey red" and her plans to investigate the state’s Democratic leadership only added to perceptions of partisanship in her office.
Meanwhile, another high-profile legal battle is playing out in Virginia, where former FBI Director James Comey faces two felony charges for making false statements and obstructing a federal proceeding. The charges, brought by a Trump-appointed prosecutor, stem from Comey’s alleged denial of involvement in leaks during Senate testimony in 2020. On October 19, 2025, federal prosecutors signaled they may seek to disqualify Comey’s lead defense attorney, Patrick Fitzgerald, due to Fitzgerald’s alleged involvement in the release of classified information following Comey’s firing by Trump in 2017.
According to court filings, Fitzgerald acted as a middleman in Comey’s efforts to get information to the media, a fact detailed in a 2019 Justice Department Office of Inspector General report. However, the report found no evidence that classified information actually made its way to the press. Prosecutors Tyler Lemons and Gabriel Diaz wrote, "Based on publicly disclosed information, the defendant used current lead defense counsel to improperly disclose classified information. This fact raises a question of conflict and disqualification for current lead defense counsel." The prosecution requested that a "filter team" of lawyers review evidence in Comey’s case to ensure attorney-client privilege is protected while addressing potential conflicts.
Comey’s legal team, for its part, is preparing to file motions to dismiss the case on grounds of selective and vindictive prosecution, as well as challenging the legality of the Trump-appointed interim U.S. attorney who brought the charges. The use of filter teams—routine in complex cases involving privileged information—reflects the high stakes and sensitivity of the proceedings.
The Inspector General’s Office itself has not been immune to political crossfire. Its website was taken offline earlier in October 2025 after the Trump administration moved to shutter the Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency, complicating public access to oversight reports.
These intertwined legal dramas—each with their own cast of prosecutors, judges, and political actors—offer a snapshot of the ongoing struggle over the independence and integrity of the U.S. justice system. As courts weigh the legality of key appointments and the appropriateness of prosecutions, the broader question remains: Can the justice system maintain public trust amid such deep partisan divides?
For now, the fate of Alina Habba’s appointment, the prosecution of James Comey, and the investigation into the prosecution of Donald Trump all hang in the balance, with far-reaching implications for the relationship between law and politics in America.
