Politico’s West Wing Playbook reports:

The Trump administration’s strained relationship with federal courts began as cracks in a windshield: refusing to identify the true head of DOGE; suggesting that a judge’s oral ruling in an emergency case wasn’t binding; dismissing the criminal case against New York City Mayor Eric Adams in an apparent quid pro quo over immigration policy.

Nine months into President Donald Trump’s second term, however, those cracks have spread across the glass. Judges are routinely skeptical of the Justice Department’s representations in court. They’ve called out flagrant misrepresentations, scolded prosecutors for irregular decisions and warned that the historical presumption that the executive branch acts in good faith before the court, known as the “presumption of regularity,” has been stretched to the breaking point.

“Generations of presidential administrations and public officials have validated this underlying premise of the presumption of regularity: their actions writ large have raised little question that they act ‘in obedience to [their] duty,’” Clinton-appointed U.S. District Judge Paul Friedman warned in an August ruling that catalogued dozens of examples. “Over the last six months, however, courts have seen instance after instance of departures from this tradition.”

In recent weeks, this damaged “presumption of regularity” has flared in court, with judges refusing to accept Justice Department attorneys’ explanations at face value and even telling them outright that the executive branch has forfeited its claim to presumed honesty. [Continue reading…]