Federal Judges Question DOJ Credibility and Presumption of Regularity

Federal judges nationwide are increasingly challenging the Department of Justice’s credibility, accusing its lawyers of violating the presumption of regularity that traditionally allows courts to trust government representations. The criticism spans judges appointed by both Democratic and Republican presidents, with examples such as a Rhode Island judge rebuking prosecutors for withholding information in a transgender-health case, and a New Jersey judge refusing to accept unverified statements generated by artificial intelligence.

Other rulings have forced ICE to release detainees when the government failed to demonstrate a flight-risk justification. The judges’ language has been unusually forceful, labeling DOJ actions as unlawful, unethical, or unseemly, and signaling a broader erosion of trust between the judiciary and the Justice Department.