Judges across federal courts in America are fed up with President Donald Trump's Justice Department, with many questioning whether government lawyers can be trusted or obey judicial orders.
A new report from Democracy Docket details growing frustration among judges appointed by presidents of both parties, as clashes over immigration, press access and federal projects test the longstanding legal convention known as the presumption of regularity.
The principle limits judicial scrutiny by presuming that government officials act lawfully and in good faith. Legal experts say the Trump administration's disregard for the rule of law and frequent confrontations with judges are eroding that assumption.
“Judges are figuring out that either the attorneys can’t or won’t manage the Trump administration,” constitutional law professor David Schultz told Democracy Docket.
The most recent confrontation involves U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes, who angrily rebuked Justice Department lawyers after they removed more than 500 trees from Washington's historic East Potomac Golf Links, and expressed feeling betrayed by the move.
Reyes had repeatedly asked the DOJ for advance notice before making irreversible changes to the historic golf course. Instead, they seemingly ignored her request and removed more than 400 trees, prompting the judge to question whether officials had deliberately withheld information.
“You did your absolute worst,” Reyes told government attorneys in regard to their efforts to notify the court.
The administration maintained the removal followed an older landscaping plan and was separate from Trump's proposed renovation. The Justice Department later tried to remove Reyes from the case, alleging bias, but she rejected the request.
Another Trump-appointed judge, Timothy Kelly, blocked the administration's effort to ban White House access for reporters from CNN, MS NOW and Politico. Kelly sided with the networks, questioning the government's claim of national security risks and found the restrictions likely violated the First Amendment
Due to the growing distrust of Trump’s DOJ, judges are changing how they write orders.
In one case, U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis now requires 30 days' advance notice before the administration activates a portal involving state citizenship lists, a measure intended to preserve judicial review amid threats of election interference
Xinis previously accused administration officials of deliberately defying orders in the wrongful deportation case involving Kilmar Abrego Garcia.
Meanwhile, U.S. District Judge James Boasberg continues pursuing a contempt investigation over El Salvador-bound deportation flights carrying Venezuelans despite an order restricting them.
Retired federal judge Jeremy Fogel told Democracy Docket that the administration has a view that “the most important thing is to win.”
Experts say the real danger is that if the courts can't take the Government at its word, then they're going to have to be much more rigorous in their approach, such as demanding more evidence and documentation and being on the lookout for attempts to circumvent their decisions.
