US federal judges question DOJ integrity amid ethical concerns
Judges from both political parties cite withheld information, factual errors and use of grand juries to harass opponents as trust in the Justice Department declines.
A review of hundreds of US federal cases indicates a growing trend of judicial rebuke against the Department of Justice for conduct described as unlawful, unethical and dishonest. This criticism centres on the erosion of the "presumption of regularity," a legal doctrine that traditionally requires courts to assume government actions are performed in good faith.
A ProPublica analysis of cases since Donald Trump’s second term began identified more than 40 instances where judges explicitly referenced this presumption, with many expressing frustration that they can no longer take the government at its word. Judges from both political parties, including those appointed by Trump, have issued strong condemnations, citing issues such as prosecutors withholding information, filing briefs with factual errors or fabricated case law, and using grand juries to harass political opponents.
Several judges have referred DOJ lawyers to disciplinary bodies or bar associations for potential misconduct. In one instance, a Miami federal judge referred a lawyer to the Florida Bar for potential disciplinary proceedings after ruling that a lawsuit brought by the president’s legal team was an improper exercise in self-enrichment. Another judge in Rhode Island referred lawyers to a review board for their handling of an investigation into a hospital’s care of transgender children, citing withheld information and misrepresented facts.
The presumption of regularity creates a high bar for those suing the government or defending themselves against it in criminal cases. Overcoming that presumption has become increasingly common under Trump’s second term, according to court watchers. About half of the cases identified as questioning the presumption come from districts where many of Trump’s actions are challenged, including the District of Columbia, Maryland, Virginia, New York and California.
Federal judges rarely grant interviews, and none of the judges who criticized the Justice Department in their orders granted interviews to ProPublica. In a statement, a spokesperson for the DOJ said its attorneys are "dedicated public servants who represent the United States with integrity, in accordance with their ethical obligations and the law." The White House did not respond to a request for comment.
