Nationwide, US federal judges are expressing skepticism towards DOJ attorneys, challenging the reliability of their truth-telling abilities and adherence to longstanding legal principles. Judges appointed by presidents across the political spectrum, including Donald Trump, are focusing on the concept known as ‘the presumption of regularity’ in their critiques. This phenomenon is observed across various locations, such as Washington, D.C., Rhode Island, and Oregon. This implies that judges must assume that the government, including federal prosecutors, IRS auditors, or FBI agents, followed proper procedures and acted in good faith. Until Trump’s second term, when there was a significant departure of experienced DOJ lawyers and a shift in focus from civil rights enforcement to defending a mass deportation strategy, this essential principle was seldom brought up in federal courtrooms. According to former judges, lawyers, and scholars, this hasn’t changed much. As Trump’s Department of Justice displays actions labeled as “unlawful,” “unethical,” “unseemly” or dishonest by judges, the adherence to the fundamental standard is now being doubted. In an examination of numerous cases since Trump’s presidency, over 40 instances were found where judges directly mentioned the presumption of regularity due to DOJ lawyers’ conduct. Often, judges express dissatisfaction as they cannot trust the government’s statements anymore. John E. Jones, a former federal judge from President George W. Bush’s appointment, stated that judges do not believe the claims made by United States attorneys and similar positions. He added that such a situation is unprecedented in the history of the Department of Justice and American jurisprudence. In Rhode Island during May, Judge Mary McElroy, who was appointed by Trump, criticized the behavior of federal prosecutors. She accused them of withholding crucial information and misrepresenting facts. This occurred as she dismissed their attempts to issue a subpoena for their investigation into the treatment of transgender children at a hospital. The judge accused the DOJ of improperly stating that its investigation was based in Texas to obtain subpoenas aimed at obtaining confidential medical records of patients in a different state. Additionally, the judge claimed that the DOJ falsely asserted that a Rhode Island hospital had not communicated with them. McElroy expressed concern about the gap between the respectable behavior expected from federal prosecutors and the DOJ’s actions in this situation. The Court agrees with the sentiment that ‘the presumption of regularity, which was previously applied to [DOJ] and allowed for trust in its intentions and stated goals, is no longer valid.’ Judges have strongly criticized the legal justification for certain aspects of Trump’s political plans, such as the mass dismissal of federal employees, an immigration net that has detained numerous American citizens, and retaliation efforts against the president’s adversaries. Through their orders, federal judges are using assertive language to indicate that the third branch of government is losing confidence in the Justice Department. A scholar claims, “I can’t recall any similar occurrences in the history of the Department of Justice or American jurisprudence.”
