Criminal Justice

Courts Say the Justice Department Is Shredding the 'Presumption of Regularity.' It Never Deserved Extra Trust.

Misconduct and misrepresentations by Justice Department lawyers have led some federal judges to question the traditional benefit of the doubt they give to the government.

C.J. Ciaramella | 8.6.2026 2:36 PM

Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL Add Reason to Google

Media Contact & Reprint Requests

(Adani Samat/Gary Blakeley/Dreamstime/Midjourney/WIkimedia Commons)

Federal judges across the country say the Trump administration has lost the confidence of courts, complaining that the "presumption of regularity"—the traditional trust that the government is acting in good faith—has been "dislodged," "destroyed," and "undeniably eroded."

The warnings come amid the Trump administration's radical makeover of the Department of Justice (DOJ), which has seen the exodus of hundreds of career attorneys and the elevation of others based largely on loyalty to the president. This has led to a noticeable decline in the quality of court filings by the DOJ, repeated instances of its attorneys being threatened with sanctions, and an end to the department's traditionally near-perfect record in high-profile prosecutions.

But it certainly might not be a bad thing if judges were more skeptical of the government.

The presumption of regularity is a formal legal principle that raises the burden of proof for parties in court alleging things like government retaliation or selective prosecution, but it's also "a mindset or a cultural commitment within the federal courts to give the government the benefit of the doubt," Carissa Hessick, a professor at the University of North Carolina School of Law, tells Reason.

The cultural side of the presumption of regularity is based largely on federal judges' perception that the Justice Department holds its........

© Reason.com