President Donald J. Trump’s ongoing battle with an entrenched legal establishment took another turn this week as one of his closest legal allies, Alina Habba, faced a judicial roadblock in New Jersey — even as she celebrated a major legal victory in New York.

On Thursday, Judge Matthew Brann, an Obama-appointed jurist from the Middle District of Pennsylvania, ruled that Habba had been “unlawfully” serving as U.S. Attorney for the District of New Jersey despite being properly appointed by President Trump earlier this year. Brann’s 77-page opinion sided with criminal defendants seeking to derail her tenure, claiming it violated the Federal Vacancies Reform Act.

“Faced with the question of whether Ms. Habba is lawfully performing the functions and duties of the office of the United States Attorney for the District of New Jersey, I conclude that she is not,” Brann wrote, adding that her signatures on filings were invalid and that she “must be disqualified from participating in any ongoing cases.”

Notably, the ruling does not dismiss the criminal indictments of the defendants who brought the challenge but temporarily bars Habba from prosecuting them. The decision is stayed to allow the Justice Department time to appeal.

Habba, who became a national figure as one of President Trump’s fiercest legal defenders, was first installed as interim U.S. Attorney earlier this year. Under federal law, interim appointments are limited to 120 days unless extended or confirmed by the Senate. When New Jersey judges declined to reappoint her and instead elevated career prosecutor Desiree Leigh Grace, President Trump and Attorney General Pam Bondi fought back. Grace was dismissed, and Habba was reinstalled under a different vacancy statute, a move Brann rejected outright.

Brann, echoing the left’s resistance to Trump-appointed officials in blue states, claimed the administration’s interpretation “opens a gaping loophole in this tightly crafted scheme meant to provide only limited flexibility and prevent ‘manipulation.’”

The legal challenge originated with defendants accused of fraud and drug trafficking, including Julien Giraud, who argued his constitutional rights were violated because Habba’s appointment allegedly bypassed statutory limits. Brann agreed, despite noting that the same strategy has been used in California and New York — jurisdictions where Senate confirmation of Trump nominees is effectively blocked by Democrat opposition.

Brann took the case only after the Third Circuit chief judge reassigned it, citing a conflict among New Jersey’s federal judges due to their prior involvement in removing Habba. Now the Biden-era Justice Department faces a decision: appeal the ruling and continue the fight to retain Habba or capitulate to the judiciary’s obstruction and nominate someone new.

Even as this legal skirmish plays out, Habba scored a major legal triumph in New York. Attorney General Letitia James’ politically motivated civil crusade against President Trump collapsed when a panel of appellate judges struck down the $500 million civil penalty as unconstitutional.

“Today’s ruling by the New York appeals court is a resounding victory for President Trump and his company,” Habba declared. “The court struck down the outrageous and unlawful $464 million penalty, confirming what we have said from the beginning: the Attorney General’s case was politically motivated, legally baseless, and grossly excessive.”

For President Trump and Habba, this split-screen legal drama underscores the ongoing fight against a judiciary that often seems more interested in politics than justice — and the resilience of an administration unafraid to challenge it.