US judges, USA News (United States): Across the United States, judges are fuming. The source of their ire: Donald Trump and his administration. In frank, unapologetic and sometimes openly angry language, the American judiciary is pushing back at what it says is undemocratic and dangerous behaviour by Trump, his agents and federal prosecutors. And in the lead-up to next month’s midterm elections, those accusations have escalated dramatically.
On Wednesday Judge David Carter, in California’s district court, accused Trump of acting like “a sovereign”. The Trump administration, via the Department of Justice (DOJ) has been seeking an emergency court order to segregate about 20,000 potential ballots in the midterm elections, which it claimed were sent to “likely noncitizens”. In a blistering 26-page ruling rejecting the suit, Carter said the case was “about the right of every American citizen to vote in a free and fair election”.
“Never before in American history has the federal government, on the eve of an election, sought to coerce a state and local government to abandon their own Constitutional elections procedures and bend to the will of the Executive Branch,” Carter wrote. Carter said it wasn’t an isolated case: the DOJ has filed at least 31 lawsuits in federal district courts across the country seeking to decide who can or cannot vote according to its own lists of eligible voters. The DOJ stated it was following the facts and the law rather than a political timetable.
Legal Clashes and Courtroom Scrutiny
On Tuesday, a federal judge scolded the DOJ for mishandling a criminal case against two former FBI officials regarding an investigation of a laptop linked to Hunter Biden. An agent confessed in court that FBI director Kash Patel ordered the case to be launched after a July speech from Trump. Magistrate Zia Faruqui rejected an amended criminal complaint filed by the DOJ that lacked a judge’s confirmation of probable cause, complaining that everything felt like a sideshow.
Meanwhile, in Washington DC, District Court Judge Ana Reyes strongly criticized the administration over a plan to bulldoze a public golf course when government lawyers insisted there was no official plan despite presidential social media posts. Reyes emphasized that the executive branch cannot act free from judicial oversight, stating that the separation of powers permits no branch to run amok unchecked. Trump responded on social media holding Reyes responsible for any injuries on the course.
Erosion of the Presumption of Regularity
Under pressure from the administration, prosecutors are starting to cut corners or even lie, judges claim. Legal reviews by outlets such as ProPublica and CNN have highlighted numerous cases where federal judges expressed that they could no longer rely on the legal principle known as the presumption of regularity.
In May, District Court Judge Mary McElroy criticized a DOJ investigation into gender-affirming care, stating the department had misrepresented information under oath. In January, District Court Judge Irene Berger ordered the release of a detainee arrested without a warrant after prosecutors incorrectly justified the arrest using a 2009 conviction for an individual who would have been four years old at the time. In June, District Court Judge Patrick Schiltz quashed subpoenas aimed at Minnesota Governor Tim Walz and allies, ruling they were part of an unconstitutional effort to coerce officials.
