New York Times reporter Alan Feuer reports that U.S. judges are openly questioning the honesty of Justice Department lawyers and their filings.
“As a general rule, judges tend to take them at their word and assume they are telling the truth,” wrote Feuer. “But in the past several months, as members of President Trump’s Justice Department have repeatedly misled the courts, violated their orders and demonized judges who have ruled against them, some jurists have started to show an angry loss of faith in the people and the institution they once believed in most.”
This goes beyond judges using harsh language like “egregious,” “brazen,” and “lawless” to describe Trump’s power-grabbing policies, said Feuer.
READ MORE: 'She is very very dumb': Fox News host mocked after flubbing basic civics lesson
Consider Magistrate Judge Zia M. Faruqui, in the Federal District Court in Washington, who Feuer describes as “ripping” federal prosecutors in June after they asked him to be “highly deferential” in keeping a warrant sealed.
“Blind deference to the government?” Faruqui wrote. “That is no longer a thing. Trust that has been earned over generations has been lost in weeks.”
Faruqui then reminded prosecutors that their justice department fired prosecutors who worked on Trump’s two criminal cases. They have attacked the charges brought against the rioters who stormed the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, as a witch hunt, and they have violated judicial orders in cases stemming from Trump’s deportation policies and from his efforts to freeze federal grants.
“These norms being broken must have consequences,” Judge Faruqui said. “High deference is out; trust but verify is in.”
READ MORE: 'Never seen a crowd like this': Pro-Trump GOP rep's town hall mobbed by angry constituents
Feuer reports Judge Dale E. Ho, of Federal District Court in Manhattan, went so far as to call federal arguments false in an April order dismissing bribery charges against Mayor Eric Adams of New York. Ho ultimately agreed to throw out the charges, but Feuer reports he “took a swipe at the department’s credibility, saying it appeared as though officials had used their power in a quid pro quo with Mr. Adams to get him to support Mr. Trump’s immigration crackdown in the city.”
“Everything here smacks of a bargain,” wrote Ho. “Dismissal of the indictment in exchange for immigration policy concessions.”
Feuer said another federal judge on Long Island refused last month to take the department’s word after prosecutors asked her to dismiss an indictment against Vladimir Arévalo Chávez in preparation for sending him back to El Salvador, and she demanded to know the politics behind their motivation. A Los Angelas judge overseeing a federal request to drop fraud charges against Trump donor Andrew Wiederhorn recently asked the Justice Department to further outline its reasons for wanting to do so, Feuer added.
READ MORE: GOP senators tell Trump to 'back off' — and are now holding up 3 of his nominees: report
“I think people don’t fully appreciate how much the ability of the legal system to work on a daily basis rests on the government’s credibility,” said Stephen Vladeck, a Georgetown University law professor who spoke with Feuer. “Without that credibility, it’s going to be harder for the government to do anything in court — even ordinary things. All of a sudden, you’re going to have courts second-guessing things that they wouldn’t have before.”
Former U.S. attorney Barbara McQuade agreed, telling Feuer the collapse of DOJ integrity was likely to gum up some of its work.
“If government lawyers have to prove up every statement they make at every level in every case every time they go to court, it would grind the justice system to a halt,” McQuade said.
Read the full New York Times report at this link.