US judges, USA News (California, Washington D.C., and nationwide): Across the United States, federal judges have expressed profound frustration with Donald Trump and his administration. In frank, unapologetic, and sometimes openly angry language, members of the American judiciary are pushing back against what they describe as undemocratic and dangerous behavior by Trump, his agents, and federal prosecutors as the midterm elections approach.
On Wednesday, Judge David Carter of California’s district court accused Trump of acting like “a sovereign.” The Trump administration, through the Department of Justice (DOJ), had sought an emergency court order to segregate approximately 20,000 potential ballots in the midterm elections, claiming they were sent to likely noncitizens. In a 26-page ruling rejecting the suit, Carter stated the case concerned 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, adding that the DOJ’s actions indicate a broad, ongoing pattern of attempted election interference.
Legal Conflicts Across the Federal Judiciary
Other judges have similarly scolded federal prosecutors and the administration. On Tuesday, a federal magistrate judge in Washington D.C., Zia Faruqui, criticized the DOJ for mishandling a criminal case against two former FBI officials regarding an investigation into a laptop linked to Hunter Biden. An agent testified that FBI Director Kash Patel ordered the case launched after a July speech from Trump. Magistrate Faruqui rejected an amended criminal complaint that lacked a judge’s confirmation of probable cause, calling the proceedings a “sideshow on top of a sideshow.”
Meanwhile, District Court Judge Ana Reyes in Washington D.C. addressed a lawsuit regarding the administration’s plan to bulldoze a public golf course. Reyes criticized government lawyers for asking the court not to believe the sitting president while administration officials cut down trees on the historic site despite pending litigation. In her 70-page ruling, Reyes emphasized the importance of the separation of powers and judicial oversight, writing that the executive branch may not act free from checks and balances.
Erosion of the Presumption of Regularity
Legal reviews published by outlets like ProPublica and CNN indicate that federal judges increasingly find they cannot rely on the “presumption of regularity”—the traditional assumption that the government operates in good faith. Instances cited by judges include:
- In May, District Court Judge Mary McElroy in Rhode Island quashed a DOJ subpoena regarding 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 by ICE without a warrant after prosecutors incorrectly justified the arrest using a 2009 drug conviction for an individual who would have been four years old at the time.
- In June, District Court Judge Patrick Schiltz quashed DOJ subpoenas aimed at Minnesota Governor Tim Walz and allies, ruling they were issued in an unconstitutional effort to coerce state officials.
CNN’s review similarly identified numerous rulings where judges described government actions using terms such as squalid, irrational, and shocking, with abuse of power serving as the most common criticism.
