Four of Trump’s top attorneys resign after a devastating Supreme Court ruling shatters his immunity defense
Executive summary
The record shows a wave of departures among Trump-aligned Justice Department lawyers and hand-picked U.S. attorneys after a string of adverse court rulings that undercut the administration’s tactics for keeping loyalists in power, but the available reporting does not substantiate a direct, contemporaneous link tying “four of Trump’s top attorneys” resigning specifically to a single Supreme Court decision that destroyed an immunity defense (reporting documents multiple resignations and court rebukes, not the precise causal sequence in the prompt) [1] [2] [3] [4].
1. The exodus: who left and why the press calls it significant
Multiple high-profile departures have been reported: Alina Habba resigned after an appeals court disqualified her as acting U.S. attorney in New Jersey (reporters noted her resignation shortly after the ruling) and Lindsey Halligan—another Trump hand‑picked prosecutor—was ordered by a judge to stop using the U.S. attorney title and then announced her exit, both episodes framed as part of a broader purge and legal rebuke of interim appointees [3] [2] [1].
2. Courts pushing back on appointment maneuvers
Federal judges across districts have intervened, ruling that interim appointments exceeded the 120‑day statutory limit and that the Justice Department’s maneuvers to sustain loyalists were unlawful; those rulings have resulted in disqualifications and prompted departures or withdrawals of nominees, signaling growing judicial resistance to sidestepping Senate confirmation [1] [5].
3. The Supreme Court and the broader legal setbacks facing the administration
The Supreme Court’s recent docket has produced several rulings and arguments that checked key Trump initiatives—on the National Guard deployments, tariffs, and challenges to executive‑branch authority such as attempts to remove independent officials—feeding a narrative that courts are constraining aggressive unitary‑executive tactics, though the sources link those broader losses to institutional pushback rather than a single immunity‑destroying decision tied to four resignations [6] [7] [8] [9].
4. Internal frictions: ethics, pressure, and DOJ morale
Newsweek and PBS reporting captured internal strains: some DOJ lawyers feared pressure to misstate facts and legal questions in court, raising ethical alarm, while the department defended its hiring and insisted it is replacing those who left to defend the president’s policies; observers concluded the departures have hollowed out institutional experience and raised questions about politicization of the Justice Department [4] [10].
5. Political theater and institutional tactics: the administration’s response and hidden agendas
Attorney General Pam Bondi and other senior officials have framed the resignations and disqualifications as partisan obstruction by Senate Democrats and as grounds for appeal or reinstatement; critics see a deliberate effort to install political loyalists to pursue “lawfare” against Trump’s enemies, and judges’ blunt language—calling department pleadings “vitriolic” in at least one case—suggests courts view the fights as more than routine litigation [2] [5].
6. What can be concluded — and what reporters cannot show from the available sources
From the assembled reporting it is clear that several Trump‑aligned prosecutors resigned or were disqualified in the wake of appellate and district court rulings that limited interim appointment tactics, and that the administration has sustained multiple legal setbacks at both trial and appellate levels; however, none of the provided sources documents the specific claim that “four of Trump’s top attorneys resigned after a devastating Supreme Court ruling that shattered his immunity defense,” so that precise causal and numerical formulation cannot be verified from the material at hand [1] [2] [3] [4] [6].