When Courts Stop Trusting the Government

There was a time when standing in a courtroom and saying, “I represent the United States,” was a great honor that provided a solid cloak of respectability, deference, and unmistakable power.

It was not power in the partisan sense. It was the understanding—shared by judges across the political spectrum—that when a lawyer from the Department of Justice spoke the court could rely on what was said. Not because government lawyers were perfect. Not because they never made mistakes. But because their charge was different: not to win at any cost, but to do justice.

Over generations, that commitment to do justice built something important—a presumption of regularity. Courts deferred to the government not out of blind loyalty, but because experience had earned trust. Over time, the DOJ built up a deep reservoir of good faith with the courts, one case, one hearing, one representation at a time.

And now, that reservoir is running dry.

Across the country, in courtrooms led by judges appointed by Republicans and Democrats alike, something remarkable—and alarming—is happening. Courts are openly rejecting the idea that the government deserves deference. This rejection is across a spectrum of cases:

• In a case about the deployment of the National Guard, Judge Karin Immergut (nominated by President Trump) concluded that “[t]he President’s determination was simply untethered to the facts.”¹
• In Virginia, Judge David J. Novak (nominated by President Trump) invalidated a U.S. Attorney’s appointment and chastised the Department’s filing as containing “a level of vitriol more appropriate for a cable news talk show and falls far beneath the level of advocacy expected from litigants in this Court, particularly the Department of Justice.”²
• In Minnesota, multiple judges criticized the government’s detention of noncitizens in what one described as an “undeniable move by the Government in the past month to defy court orders or at least to stretch the legal process to the breaking point in an attempt to deny noncitizens their due process rights.” Senior Judge Michael J. Davis (nominated by President Clinton).³ Another characterized the government’s actions in multiple cases “the pattern of obfuscation.” Judge Donovan W. Frank (nominated by President Clinton).⁴ Yet another suggested that “the government is going to frustrate judicial review by moving detainees around the country repeatedly,” and “if the government’s lawyers are going to request relief from the Court premised on factual contentions without evidentiary support, then other considerations apply.” Senior Judge John M. Gerrard (nominated by President Obama).⁵
• In California, a court reviewing mass firings of federal employees declared “[t]he ‘administrative record’ submitted by the government is a sham.” Judge William H. Alsup (nominated by President Clinton).⁶
• In Washington, D.C., Judge Amy Berman Jackson (nominated by President Obama), concluded that “omissions from the [government’s] first declaration rendered it to be highly misleading, if not intentionally false,” and wrote that “the Court is left with little confidence that the [government] can be trusted to tell the truth about anything.”⁷
• In Florida, the Court stated that it “dismissed the th[e] habeas action as moot on the representation that Petitioner was deported. That fact turned out to be untrue.” Judge Kyle Dudek (nominated by President Trump).⁸
• In Massachusetts, Judge Brian E. Murphy (nominated by President Biden), found the court “was given false information, upon which it relied, twice, to the detriment of a party at risk of serious and irreparable harm.”⁹
• In Pennsylvania, Judge Harvey Bartle III (nominated by President H.W. Bush) wrote in another habeas case that “[t]hese petitions are filed due to the illegal actions of Immigration and Customs Enforcement(“ICE”). Despite hundreds of similar rulings in this and other courts resoundingly in favor of the ICE-detainee petitioners, ICE continues to act contrary to law, to spend taxpayer money needlessly, and to waste the scarce resources of the judiciary.”¹⁰

These are not isolated rebukes. They are not confined to one circuit, one ideology, or one type of case. They span the country. They involve judges nominated by Presidents of both parties. And increasingly, they converge on a single theme: the government’s credibility is in question.

The rule of law depends on trust—on the expectation that when the government speaks to a court, it does so honestly; that when it submits a record, it is complete; that when it invokes its authority, it is tethered to facts and law.

Courts across the country have taken note and have begun to undermine or reject entirely the presumption of regularity.

• One wrote, “Blind deference to the government? That is no longer a thing. Trust that had been earned over generations has been lost in weeks… These norms being broken must have consequences. High deference is out; trust, but verify is in.”¹¹
• Another told the government that “You have taken the presumption of regularity and you’ve destroyed it in my view.” Judge Paula Xinis (nominated by President Obama), Abrego Garcia v. Noem, D. Md., (quoted in the New York Times).
• Senior Judge Beryl A. Howell (nominated by President Obama), concluded the government’s actions “raised some concern about the general presumption by courts ‘that executive officials will act in good faith.’”¹²
• Judge Loren L. AliKhan (nominated by President Biden) wrote, “Defendants’ plea for a presumption of good faith rings hollow when their own actions contradict their representations.”¹³

Weaponizing the Justice Department—whether to pursue political enemies, to stretch legal theories beyond recognition, or to shade the truth in service of short-term wins—does not simply harm those targeted. It harms the institution itself. And when the institution that represents the United States loses the trust of the judiciary, all of us pay the price. Credibility, once squandered, is painfully slow to rebuild. The reservoir that took decades to fill can be drained in a year.

Because when the phrase “I represent the United States” no longer carries an assumption of integrity, the damage does not fall on one administration alone. It falls on the rule of law itself.

Notes
¹ Oregon v. Trump, 802 F. Supp. 3d 1277,1292 (D. Or.).
² United States v. Jefferson, 2026 WL 145277, at *1 (E.D. Va. Jan. 20, 2026).
³ Marco M. v. Bondi, 2026 WL 194406, at *1 (D. Minn. Jan. 25, 2026).
⁴ Jonnathan X.D.B. v. Noem, 2026 WL 222189, at *1 (D. Minn. Jan. 28. 2026).
⁵ Gallardo v. Noem, 2026 WL 272427, at *2 (D. Minn. Feb. 2, 2026).
⁶ Am. Fed’n of Gov’t Emps., AFL-CIO v. United States Off. Of Pers. Mgmt., 799 F.Supp.3d 967, 979 (N.D. Cal. 2025).
⁷ Nat’l Treasury Emps. Union v. Vought, 774 F. Supp.3d 1, 57 (D.D.C.) vacated and remanded, 149 F.4th 762 (D.C. Cir. 2025), reh’g en banc granted, opinion vacated, No. 25-5091, 2025 WL 3659406 (D.C. Cir. Dec. 17, 2025).
⁸ Rodriguez v. Walker, 2:26-cv-00002, Dkt. entry 15 (M.D. Fla. Feb. 5, 2026).
⁹ D.V.D. v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 784 F. Supp 3d 401, 406 (D. Mass. 2025)
¹⁰ Lopes v. Jamison, 2026 WL 299991, at *1 (E.D. Pa. Feb. 4, 2026)
¹¹ Magistrate Judge Zia M. Faruqui, In re Search of One Device & Two Individuals under Rule 41, 784 F. Supp. 3d 234, 245 n. 10 (D.D.C. 2025).
¹² Perkins Coie LLP v. U.S. Dep’t of Just., 780 F. Supp 3d 227, 233 (D.D.C. 2025).
¹³ Nat’l Council of Nonprofits v. Off. of Mgmt. & Budget, 763 F. Supp. 3d 36, 50 (D.D.C. 2025).