US judges, USA News (Washington, D.C. and California): Across the US, 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.
‘Democracy in danger’
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. “In bringing this lawsuit, the Executive would have this Court believe that it reigns as a sole sovereign.”
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. He also ordered the DOJ to stop threatening officials who do not comply with its wishes, warning that democracy is in danger if the executive branch can discount votes based on unproven allegations.
‘A sideshow on top of a sideshow’
On Tuesday, a federal judge scolded the DOJ for mishandling a criminal case against two former FBI officials regarding an investigation into 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 is a sideshow.
The DOJ is also facing accusations of political motivations regarding fresh attempts to prosecute former FBI director James Comey and a former White House staffer who testified against Trump at an investigation into the January 2021 Capitol Hill riot.
‘Running amok, unchecked’
Trump’s plan to bulldoze a public golf course in Washington DC and replace it with a resort copy has met stiff resistance from conservationists. District Court Judge Ana Reyes rounded on the government when it started cutting down trees on the course while litigation was ongoing. Reyes criticized the administration for trying to shield itself from accountability and emphasized that the executive branch may not act free from judicial oversight.
The judgment drew a social media response from Trump, who stated the government would hold Reyes fully responsible for anyone hurt or killed on the golf course.
‘Unworthy… unsettling… blatantly unlawful’
Under pressure from the administration, prosecutors are starting to cut corners or lie, judges claim. A ProPublica review of hundreds of cases showed judges could increasingly not rely on “the presumption of regularity”—the assumption that the government has done its job properly and in good faith. Specific examples cited include District Court Judge Mary McElroy in Rhode Island, District Court Judge Irene Berger in West Virginia, and District Court Judge Patrick Schiltz in Minnesota all rebuking federal prosecutors for bad-faith arguments, unsupported arrests, and unconstitutional subpoenas aimed at political opponents.
A similar review by CNN found 77 rulings by dozens of federal judges describing government actions using terms such as squalid, irrational, and shocking.
