In a surprising pivot from its usual headline-making antics, the Department of Justice (DOJ) in New Jersey has opted for a more traditional approach to legal proceedings, marking a stark contrast to the previous year's defiant and unconventional tactics.

Under the leadership of Acting US Attorney Alina Habba and Attorney General Pam Bondi, the DOJ had been known for its confrontational stance towards what they labelled as "rogue" and "activist" judges. However, following the replacement of Habba, the First Assistant United States Attorney in New Jersey has taken a decidedly different path.

This shift was notably evident in a recent habeas case, where the DOJ was instructed by Judge Michael Farbiarz to account for past discrepancies. Special attorney Jordan Fox complied, detailing 56 violations of court orders in immigration cases. Unlike previous responses, Fox's declaration was devoid of any defiant rhetoric, instead expressing gratitude for the court's recognition of the DOJ's efforts to adhere to the law.

The change in tone and approach comes after a tumultuous period where the DOJ was heavily criticized for its handling of immigration cases. Courts across the nation, except for the Fifth Circuit, have rebuked the Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) continued detention of asylum seekers without bond hearings, despite clear court orders to the contrary.

The strain on the legal system has been immense, with district courts overwhelmed by numerous habeas petitions necessitating urgent judicial review. The situation reached a boiling point when immigration lawyer Julie Le, during a courtroom session in Minnesota, expressed her exasperation with ICE's non-compliance, indicating the extreme pressures faced by legal professionals in these cases.

Judge Farbiarz's order for the DOJ to enumerate violations signifies a rigorous attempt to ensure accountability and adherence to judicial mandates. He further emphasized the need for DHS to establish clear procedures to comply with these orders, a directive that could potentially ease the administrative burden on New Jersey's courts.

Jordan Fox, now overseeing the Civil and Appellate Divisions, is seen as a key figure in transitioning the DOJ's New Jersey office back to a normative functioning state. Her handling of negotiations with local judges and her efforts to secure a more permanent appointment could pave the way for a more stable and predictable legal environment in New Jersey.

As the DOJ attempts to navigate its responsibilities within the bounds of judicial scrutiny, the legal community watches closely. The outcome of these efforts could set a precedent for how federal agencies interact with the judiciary and manage compliance with the law, marking a critical juncture in the relationship between different branches of government.