Judges Reject DOJ's Presumption of Regularity in Trump-Era Cases as $10 Billion IRS Suit Reopens
Updated
Updated · The Bulwark · Jun 7
Judges Reject DOJ's Presumption of Regularity in Trump-Era Cases as $10 Billion IRS Suit Reopens
3 articles · Updated · The Bulwark · Jun 7
Summary
A federal judge in Miami reopened Trump’s $10 billion lawsuit against the IRS to examine whether a DOJ-backed settlement was “premised on deception,” an unusually direct sign that courts no longer trust the department’s representations.
That skepticism now spans judges across the ideological spectrum, who have accused Trump-era DOJ lawyers of conduct described as “egregious,” “brazen,” “lawless” and in some cases tantamount to lying.
Recent flashpoints include the Eric Adams case, where a judge said a dropped prosecution “smacks of a bargain,” and the Kilmar Ábrego García deportation fight, where the administration was accused of “willful and bad faith” behavior.
As that trust erodes, judges are demanding extra hearings and explanations in routine matters, adding to already heavy federal court backlogs and consuming time for prosecutors, defense lawyers and litigants.
The damage is also hitting DOJ staffing and public confidence: departures have mounted, recruiting has become harder, and doubts about the department now threaten faith in convictions, acquittals and the legal system itself.
When judges no longer presume government honesty, how does it impact the speed of justice for everyone?
If federal lawyers can police their own ethics, what happens to accountability and the pursuit of justice?
As veteran prosecutors flee the DOJ, how are national security and complex criminal cases being affected?
The $1.8 Billion Anti-Weaponization Fund: Legal, Political, and Constitutional Crisis Over Trump Administration’s Controversial Settlement
Overview
The Anti-Weaponization Fund, proposed by the Trump administration to support those claiming government targeting, is now on hold after a federal lawsuit challenged its legality and accountability. The Justice Department has agreed to pause the fund, and the Trump administration may abandon it entirely. The lawsuit, led by Democracy Forward attorneys and supported by former prosecutor Andrew Floyd, argues the fund was created to benefit political allies and lacks proper oversight. This legal action, combined with political efforts in Congress to permanently ban the fund, highlights deep concerns about fairness, transparency, and the potential misuse of government resources for political purposes.