Federal judges nationwide have increasingly criticized lawyers from the Department of Justice (DOJ), questioning whether they can be trusted to uphold legal norms and tell the truth. This shift centers on the "presumption of regularity," a legal principle requiring judges to assume government officials act according to rules and in good faith.

From Washington, D.C., to Rhode Island and Oregon, judges appointed by presidents from both parties, including Donald Trump, have expressed skepticism about DOJ conduct. ProPublica reviewed hundreds of cases since Trump retook the White House and found over 40 instances where judges explicitly referenced the presumption of regularity while criticizing DOJ lawyers.

John E., a judge quoted by ProPublica, said, “Judges simply don’t believe the representations that are being made by United States attorneys, assistant United States attorneys and the like.” Another judge wrote, “This only deepens the growing mistrust of the actions of prosecutors. That is a sentiment that was once unthinkable, but the irregular is now the regular.”

In a Washington state immigration detention case, Biden-appointed Judge Lauren King stated, “[t]he ‘presumption of regularity’ is dislodged here by the numerous factual errors in Respondents’ filings and by their conflicting representations.”

Jeremy Fogel, executive director of the Berkeley Judicial Institute and a former federal judge, described the situation as more of a “political conflict” than typical judicial proceedings. He said, “I would call it a transformation of the role of the Justice Department. There are many different judges in different jurisdictions not only ruling against the government but calling the government out for dishonesty and dissembling, and that’s an extraordinary thing.”

The DOJ spokesperson, Pels, responded to criticism of Judge Faruqui by saying he “was wrong on the law” and noted that his order was overruled after an appeal. Pels added that Faruqui has a “long-standing documented pattern of editorializing from the bench beyond the scope of the cases before him.”

This scrutiny follows an exodus of veteran DOJ lawyers and a shift in priorities during Trump’s second term, moving from civil rights enforcement to a focus on mass deportation policies.

Sources: