"When a decision by federal agencies or officials is challenged in court, judges implicitly trust that the government is operating in good faith when it explains how and why it made the decision. It's a tradition of deference known as the presumption of regularity. Since January, however, a growing number of federal judges have sharply criticized Trump administration attorneys over their conduct and questioned their truthfulness in several high-profile immigration enforcement and deportation cases."
"There's a common-sense notion that we assume that people in our day-to-day lives are doing what they are supposed to do. And in the government, the idea is that we should assume that government people are discharging their duties in an upright and forthright and legal way. Historically, the presumption began as a way of filling in evidentiary gaps, and it applied to both private officials and to corporate officers."
The presumption of regularity is a tradition of judicial deference that assumes government officials act in good faith and discharge duties lawfully. Since January, federal judges have increasingly criticized certain federal attorneys and questioned their truthfulness in high-profile immigration, deportation, and other cases, raising broader concerns about government credibility. Historically, the presumption filled evidentiary gaps and applied to private and corporate actors, simplifying proofs such as document authenticity. Loss of that confidence would force deeper judicial scrutiny, increase litigation burdens, invite remedies like injunctions or monitors, damage DOJ reputation, and threaten the effective functioning of government enforcement and litigation.
Read at Harvard Gazette
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]