US Domestic — 2026-07-28

Federal Judges Across Party Lines Question DOJ Presumption of Regularity in Over 40 Cases Citing Unlawful and Unethical Conduct

BLUFBipartisan judicial erosion of DOJ's presumption of regularity functionally downgrades the department's litigation standing to that of an ordinary party, compounding delays and attrition across federal enforcement actions.

A ProPublica review of hundreds of federal cases since Trump's second term began found more than 40 in which judges explicitly invoked "the presumption of regularity," the doctrine requiring courts to presume DOJ lawyers act in good faith, with roughly half arising in D.C., Maryland, and Virginia courts 1. Judges spanning both parties' appointees, including Trump-appointed Judge Mary McElroy in Rhode Island, Bush appointee Patrick Schiltz in Minnesota, and Biden appointee Christine O'Hearn in New Jersey, have accused department attorneys of withholding information, filing AI-generated statements citing nonexistent case law, and submitting declarations with factual errors, including a filing claiming a detainee had a 2009 marijuana conviction when he would have been four years old 1. Former federal judge John E. Jones, a Bush appointee, said judges no longer believe DOJ attorneys' representations and called the pattern unprecedented in the department's history, while Obama appointee Kathleen M. Williams in Miami referred attorney Alejandro Brito to the Florida Bar and New York disciplinary officials over misstatements in Trump's IRS lawsuit 1. A DOJ spokesperson said its attorneys act "with integrity, in accordance with their ethical obligations and the law," and disputed at least one judge's ruling as incorrect on the law 1. Raw Story, Talking Points Memo, and Alternet republished or relayed ProPublica's findings without independent additional reporting 234.

Analysis
Judicial invocation of "presumption of regularity" as a live question, rather than settled doctrine, strips DOJ filings of their default credibility and forces litigants and courts to demand sworn, personal-knowledge attestations before accepting government representations. That shift raises litigation costs and slows immigration, subpoena, and enforcement actions across districts, since judges from both parties now treat department filings as requiring independent verification rather than deference. Referral of a DOJ-adjacent attorney to state bar discipline signals that professional-conduct exposure is spreading beyond adverse rulings into individual accountability. The pattern also accelerates attorney attrition from DOJ toward private and nonprofit litigation shops, thinning institutional expertise inside the department.

4 sources