Federal judges claim Trump-era DOJ has shattered traditional trust in government filings

Judges nationwide say the Justice Department under the Trump administration has lost the long-standing presumption of regularity, citing poor filings and ethical concerns.

Federal judges from various circuits are warning that the Justice Department’s credibility has been severely damaged during the Trump administration, describing the presumption of regularity as "dislodged" and "destroyed." The criticism follows a wave of career attorney departures and the elevation of officials perceived as loyal to the president, which judges say has led to substandard court filings and frequent sanction threats.

Scholars such as Carissa Hessick explain that the presumption historically shifts the evidentiary burden onto challengers, but its cultural weight is waning as judges question DOJ ethics. Notable opinions, including those by Judges Paula Xinis and Mary S. McElroy, explicitly state that the department can no longer be trusted to act in good faith. Former Judge Liam O'Grady argues that individual prosecutor reputation, rather than a vague doctrine, should guide judicial assessment. The debate raises broader questions about whether the presumption should be retained or reformed in modern litigation.