Why judges are growing more skeptical of Trump’s Justice Department

A federal judge pressed Department of Justice (DOJ) lawyers this week on whether she should believe them or President Trump when it comes to the administration’s plans for a golf course in the nation’s capital.

“I don’t know what to do when I keep getting different stories from the government,” U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes , an appointee of former President Biden , said during a contentious hearing Monday regarding the future of East Potomac Park.

The dispute exemplifies a broader pattern of judges taking a more skeptical approach to evaluating the government’s claims as Trump’s second term nears the halfway point.

It wasn’t the first time Reyes made her frustration known in the case, which pits preservationist groups against the government. During an emergency hearing on Oct. 12, she told DOJ attorneys that all credibility had been lost by not providing enough notice before hundreds of trees were chopped down in the park.

In turn, the DOJ accused her of violating “basic norms” of fairness and impartiality and insisted she recuse. Trump also attacked her on social media as a “crazed lunatic,” but Reyes did not relent.

The judge’s order refusing to step aside landed just hours before Trump claimed that his Interior Department did not need approval to move forward with a major renovation. He wrote Monday morning on Truth Social that work would start “IMMEDIATELY” — a timeline DOJ lawyers would later tell Reyes had not actually been finalized. The tension in the courtroom was palpable from the start Monday.

Just minutes into the hearing, Reyes ordered the DOJ to refile a brief asserting its position that the administration’s golf course plan was not ripe for review because “no final agency action” had been taken.

Associate Attorney General Stanley Woodward was the only name on that filing, and Reyes demanded to know which other line attorneys were willing to sign on.

“Raise your hand if you’re willing to sign it,” the judge instructed the table of DOJ lawyers.

“[That’s] not an appropriate ask,” Woodward shot back.

“I’m the one who’s going to say how we move today,” Reyes said.

“You’re putting them in an incredibly untenable situation,” Woodward added.

The judge later withdrew that order after consulting clerks during a recess but cautioned that it was more difficult for her to have “confidence” in the DOJ’s filings when line attorneys are not on it.

But some see the decision to have politically appointed lawyers sign solo onto briefs as a way to insulate career lawyers from bearing the brunt of criticism in sensitive or controversial cases.

“For those wondering, a common reason high level DOJ appointees sometimes signs briefs boils down to good leadership,” Abhi Kambli , a former DOJ official in the Trump administration, wrote on social platform X . “If there is something that is likely to be contentious with a judge, a DOJ leader signs their name on the brief so that any issues someone has with the brief is directed at them rather than lower level attorneys.”

The testy exchanges did not stop between Reyes and the lawyers tasked with defending the administration against a lawsuit challenging the plans for East Potomac Park.

When lawyers claimed that there was “no final agency action” warranting the court’s intervention and no definitive plans to close the course next month for renovations, the judge questioned whom she should trust.

“Do I believe the president of the United States, or do I believe you?” she asked, referencing a Truth Social post from the day before in which Trump said the course would close on Nov. 15 for 15 months.

And Reyes is not alone. Judges across the country are looking at the government’s words more closely, and some are no longer giving them the benefit of the doubt.

As U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis , an appointee of former President Obama , put it last July in a case involving the Trump administration’s efforts to again deport Kilmar Ábrego Garcia : “You have taken the presumption of regularity and you have destroyed it.”

The legal principle generally rests on the idea that the government is acting honestly and in good faith. Its roots in Supreme Court jurisprudence trace back to an 1816 opinion, in which Justice Thomas Todd wrote that it should be presumed that “public officers act correctly until the contrary be shown.”

A study published by Just Security in March found that many judges have become less willing to take the government at face value during the second Trump administration. It pointed to a warning from U.S. District Judge Paul Friedman , an appointee of former President Clinton , in August 2025 that the president “may have forfeited the right to such a presumption of regularity.”

The authors counted 90 cases in which courts identified “serious defects in the government’s explanations and representations” since Trump’s second inauguration in January 2025, along with at least 35 other instances in habeas immigration cases.

Reyes is expected to rule soon on whether to extend an order that blocked the Trump administration from conducting any more tree removal work in East Potomac Park while the litigation plays out.

Welcome to The Gavel, The Hill’s weekly newsletter unpacking the intersection of courts & politics from Zach Schonfeld and Sophie Brams . Email us tips at zschonfeld@thehill.com and sbrams@thehill.com . You can also reach out to us on X (@ZachASchonfeld and @sophiebrams) or Signal (zachschonfeld.48 and sbrams.32).

Mahmoud Khalil heads to SCOTUS: The Columbia University graduate who spent months in immigration detention last year is taking his deportation fight to the Supreme Court, asking the justices to reverse an appeals court ruling that found a federal judge had no power to order his release from jail. Mahmoud Khalil has long argued that he was targeted by the Trump administration because of his participating in pro-Palestinian campus protests.

Musk settles: Billionaire Elon Musk has agreed to settle two lawsuits alleging that his America PAC defrauded battleground state voters by pledging to hand out $1 million checks ahead of the 2024 election.

Executive privilege invoked in Kennedy Center fight: The White House is asserting executive privilege to block the release of records of President Trump’s communications in an ongoing lawsuit from Rep. Joyce Beatty (D-Ohio) over the future of the Kennedy Center.

Brennan suit axed: A federal judge in Washington, D.C., has tossed a lawsuit from former CIA Director John Brennan, ruling that he did not yet have standing. Brennan sought a court order that would force the Trump administration to preserve records related to ongoing federal investigations into his role reviewing foreign interference in the 2016 election.

Trump officials hit with Hatch Act complaint: Three Trump administration officials — Federal Communications Commission Chair Brendan Carr, Interior Secretary Doug Burgum and Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick— are facing a Hatch Act complaint for participating in a mid-October campaign event for Sen. Dan Sullivan (R-Alaska), who is seeking reelection.

What’s it like to win the SCOTUS lottery?: The Supreme Court rejects the vast majority of requests to hear cases, so it’s a lucky day for any advocate when their petition is granted. We appreciated the candid reaction from Pacific Legal Foundation’s Chris Kieser, who wrote on social media , “Holy crap I’m going to SCOTUS,” 10 minutes after learning his case was taken up.

Enjoy it while it lasts, Mr. Chief Justice: One of Trump’s new judicial nominees clerked for Chief Justice John Roberts. The president didn’t hesitate to highlight the connection in his Truth Social announcement, even calling Roberts “esteemed” after repeated public criticisms of him.

Judge allegedly abandoned post: Dallas-based U.S. District Judge Ada Brown’s colleagues have suspended her from hearing new cases over concerns about a “mental condition,” according to a newly unsealed order . It accuses Brown, a Trump appointee who serves in the Northern District of Texas, of failing to manage her docket, hurling racist insults and engaging in “hostile treatment.” Brown isn’t the only judge facing suspension, but at 51, she’s much younger than the 98-year-old jurist at the center of the other fight.

A cybersecurity incident has ensnared federal bankruptcy courts.

It’s impacting government contractor BAE Systems, according to the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts.

BAE operates the systems that send out electronic bankruptcy notices for creditors and other interested parties. For days, the systems have been offline.

“The Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts has been in communication with the impacted courts and is also coordinating with BAE Systems,” the office said in a statement. “BAE is actively investigating this incident and working to restore operations.”

It’s left bankruptcy judges grappling with how to move cases forward.

In the Eastern District of Texas, Chief Bankruptcy Judge Brenda Rhoades has extended the automatic pause on pending litigation that kicks in when someone files for bankruptcy.

In the Southern District of New York, Chief Bankruptcy Judge Sean Lane guaranteed that “ no party shall be prejudiced ” by the interruption and signaled that parties should ask their judge if they need help.

“Upon request of a party in interest, or on its own initiative where permitted by law, the Court may extend or reset deadlines or continue hearings as necessary to address the interruption. Parties may request relief by written motion or orally at a previously scheduled hearing,” Lane wrote.

It’s the latest cybersecurity incident to hit the courts.

Last year, the federal judiciary’s electronic case filing system faced escalating cyberattacks, prompting efforts to enhance security .

And this summer, Justices Amy Coney Barrett and Elena Kagan told lawmakers they needed millions more in funding to counter the rise of artificial intelligence and shore up vulnerabilities in the Supreme Court’s digital system.

“Cybersecurity attacks have been up by magnitudes year after year,” Barrett testified. “We haven’t suffered the kind of paralyzing attacks that some of the lower courts have, but in seeing that, that has caused us to try to ramp up very quickly.”

Cases the Supreme Court is taking up — or passing on — this term.

The Supreme Court took up two of the petitions on our watchlist last week.

In Department of Justice v. McNutt , the justices will decide if a 160-year-old federal ban on distilling spirits at home is constitutional.

Congress has taxed liquor since the founding, and the government says the ban ensures people can’t avoid those taxes by putting their operation where officials can’t see it.

The Supreme Court will decide if it exceeds Congress’s constitutional authority to pass “necessary and proper” measures to carry out its powers.

The second case, Association for Education Fairness v. Montgomery County Board of Education, is the latest battle over the role of race in school admissions.

The justices will review the lottery-based system used by Montgomery County, Md., to admit students to its competitive middle schools.

It’s a key test of the Supreme Court’s decision invalidating affirmative action in higher education.

Montgomery County’s lottery is race-blind, but a group of Asian American parents say it has led to discrimination against their children under the guise of promoting diversity.

The court will decide the proper evidentiary standard for such lawsuits, which have also emerged in places like Northern Virginia and Boston.

OUT: Chicago parking enforcement challenge

Liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor and conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch teamed up a second time in as many weeks.

This time, the battle concerned Chicago’s parking enforcement system, which allows officials in some circumstances to sell people’s cars after they’ve accumulated debt from tickets.

A lower court rejected arguments that the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause applies. It requires the government to provide compensation when taking private property for public use. The lower court said the state police power is immune from that requirement.

“I have serious concerns about that conclusion,” Sotomayor wrote, joined by Gorsuch.

However, they agreed with their colleagues to turn away the Chicago parking battle, saying it wasn’t the right case to decide the issue, and it should percolate more in other lower courts.

The duo similarly teamed up last week to raise double jeopardy concerns about a Mexican man’s prosecution.

The Supreme Court asked the Trump administration for input on Bird v. Iowa Migrant Movement for Justice, the federal preemption battle over Iowa’s immigration law we previewed last month.

The court often goes with the sitting administration’s eventual recommendation about whether it should take up a case, though it often takes several months to come in.

Iowa wants the justices to reverse a ruling that it can’t pass a law making illegal immigration a state crime.

It’s one of multiple Republican-controlled states that have passed similar legislation, often in response to what they saw as inaction at the federal level by then- President Biden .

A Los Angeles judge will hold a hearing to weigh unsealing grand jury transcripts in the double-murder case against Nick Reiner , who has pleaded not guilty to the fatal stabbings of his parents, Rob and Michele Reiner .

A federal judge in D.C. will hear arguments in the Trump administration’s bid to dismiss two separate lawsuits from former FBI employees claiming they were fired for political reasons, including their work on the Arctic Frost investigation.

Social media influencer Braden Peters, known as “ Clavicular ,” will be arraigned in Massachusetts on charges in connection with the alleged rape of a Florida teenager. He faces two felony charges and one misdemeanor charge.

A federal judge in Miami will hold a hearing in Trump’s $10 billion defamation lawsuit against the BBC alleging the broadcaster deceptively edited footage of his Jan. 6, 2021, speech in one of its documentaries. The judge will weigh the BBC’s requests to depose Trump and former Special Counsel Jack Smith as well as subpoena documents from Mar-a-Lago.

A federal judge in Boston will hear arguments as he weighs whether to decide some aspects of a lawsuit challenging the Department of Health and Human Services’ new Medicaid work requirements without a full trial.

A panel for the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals will hear oral arguments in the Trump administration’s request to stay a lower court ruling that blocked the withholding of legal funding for unaccompanied migrant children.

Tyler Robinson , the 23-year-old man accused of shooting conservative activist Charlie Kirk during a Turning Point USA event last year, is expected to appear in a Utah courtroom where a trial date may be set.

A Nashville judge will hold a hearing to decide whether to set a deadline for Tennessee death row inmate Christa Pike ’s legal team to amend its complaint challenging the state’s lethal injection protocol after she survived a botched execution attempt in September.

A panel for the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals will hear oral arguments as the Trump administration seeks to pause a federal judge’s order that restored Roger Rogoff as the top U.S. attorney in Seattle.

The soldier charged with placing Polymarket wagers on the military operation to capture Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and the government are due to submit any requests to exclude evidence from the jury at trial, which is set to begin Dec. 7.

A federal judge in New York will hold a closed-door hearing with lawyers for Freestyle World , the company leading the fight for refunds of Trump’s tariffs, struck down by the Supreme Court.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett will give the keynote address at the Red Mass at St. Michael’s Cathedral Basilica in Toronto, which marks the opening of the Ontario court term.

The Wall Street Journal’s Lydia Wheeler, Meridith McGraw and Louise Radnofsky : The Race Is On for Trump Staffers to Hire Lawyers in Case Democrats Win Midterms