Federal Judges Chastise Trump’s Justice Department for “Unlawful,” “Unethical” and “Unseemly” Conduct
ProPublica reviewed hundreds of cases in which judges criticized the actions of federal prosecutors. In many, judges expressed frustration that they can no longer take the government at its word.
by J. David McSwane, Pratheek Rebala and Carla Astudillo
July 28, 2026, 5:00 am
https://www.propublica.org/article/justice-department-presumption-of-regularity?utm_source=sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=majorinvestigations&utm_content=secondary
Federal Judges Criticize Trump’s Justice Department for “Unethical” Conduct
Federal judges nominated by presidents from both parties are calling out Department of Justice lawyers, questioning in unprecedented ways whether they can be trusted to tell the truth or uphold legal norms. Across the country, these judges have zeroed in on what’s called “the presumption of regularity,” which essentially means that judges must presume that representatives of the government did their jobs according to the rules and in good faith.
Until President Donald Trump’s second term, this foundational tenet had rarely been discussed in federal courtrooms, former judges, lawyers and scholars say. But as Trump’s DOJ exhibits behavior that judges have called “unlawful,” “unethical,” “unseemly” or otherwise dishonest, adherence to that bedrock standard is now being questioned.
ProPublica reviewed hundreds of cases since Trump retook the White House in which judges criticized the actions of DOJ lawyers and found more than 40 in which they explicitly referenced the presumption of regularity. In many cases, judges have expressed frustration that they can no longer take the government at its word.
Federal judges rarely grant interviews, and none of the judges who criticized the DOJ 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.”
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario