Politico reports:

An “arbitrary fishing expedition.” “An unconstitutional effort to coerce.” “A convenient pretext for launching a criminal investigation.”

Federal judges are increasingly peering under the hood at the Trump-led Justice Department’s use of grand juries aimed at well-known adversaries of President Donald Trump. And they don’t like what they’re seeing.

These judges are scrutinizing the conduct of federal prosecutors and the legitimacy of high-profile probes that appear to stem from Trump’s personal vendettas or his efforts to bend perceived adversaries — like the Fed’s Jerome Powell or Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz — to his will.

As the judges themselves acknowledge, it’s a highly unusual review of a process in which prosecutors are typically at the zenith of their authority. They can pursue grand jury investigations on mere suspicions, untethered from the factual requirements they would need to prove a case at trial.

But even grand jury probes have limits. Subpoenas have to be relevant and reasonable, the Supreme Court has ruled. They can’t be used to harass or punish political opponents or cast around for sensitive information like a roving inquisition. But judges have said time and again that the Trump administration has taken this impermissible path.

It’s another breakdown in the historical “presumption of regularity” that courts have afforded the Justice Department. And it’s the next front in an interbranch conflict that was ignited by grand jurors themselves — ordinary citizens impaneled by courts to help prosecutors determine whether they have enough evidence to bring criminal charges. [Continue reading…]