A growing chorus of federal judges is losing patience with the Justice Department under Attorney General Pam Bondi, citing incidents in which government lawyers allegedly misled courts, slow-walked compliance, or ignored orders outright. The concern is no longer confined to legal circles or a single whistleblower, it is spilling into written rulings that question whether the government can still be trusted when it stands before the bench.
The flashpoint arrived with a 60 Minutes interview featuring Erez Reuveni, a veteran DOJ lawyer who says he was pushed out after refusing to back claims he believed were false. Reuveni described a March meeting where Emil Bove, then the department’s number three official, insisted deportation flights carrying Venezuelan detainees should take off “no matter what,” even if a court tried to stop them.
“We may have to consider telling that court, ‘f*** you,’” Bove allegedly said, according to Newsweek. Reuveni called it a gut punch, saying the message signaled that defying a federal judge was on the table. Bove has denied advising attorneys to violate any order, telling reporters he did not recall making the remark.
What happened next did not help the department’s case. When detainees’ lawyers went to court, U.S. District Judge James Boasberg convened an emergency hearing and asked a government attorney whether the planes were leaving that weekend. The lawyer said he did not know. Reuveni said that inside DOJ, staff had already been told the flights would proceed. The flights did go forward during the legal scramble, and the administration later argued the court lacked jurisdiction once the planes left U.S. airspace.
Legal scholars say these are not isolated incidents. Ryan Goodman of NYU Law said his team reviewed hundreds of cases involving the Trump administration and found “over 35” in which judges said the government provided false information, sometimes in sworn declarations. Those findings, Goodman said, undermine the long-standing “presumption of regularity” that courts typically extend to executive branch actions. If that presumption erodes, judges become less willing to take the government’s word, which can slow litigation and trigger harsher remedies.
Bondi, sworn in as attorney general in February, has promised to uphold the law while navigating intense White House pressure and a reshaped leadership team at Main Justice. But the department declined 60 Minutes’ request for an interview with Bondi, and the growing courtroom clashes have already put her on a collision course with the judiciary she must persuade every day.
Judges appointed by both parties have flagged conduct they describe as “highly misleading,” “a serious violation of the court’s order,” and corrosive to the trust built over generations. Even in cases where DOJ ultimately prevails, the skepticism now evident in rulings suggests a reputational hit that will outlast any single administration. Once a court stops assuming DOJ is playing it straight, every filing gets a closer read, every assurance gets a follow-up question, and every missed deadline looks like defiance rather than delay.
Peter Keisler, a former acting attorney general under George W. Bush, put it plainly: “While the order is in effect, it’s the obligation of the department to see to it that the government complies.” If Bondi’s DOJ cannot quickly restore credibility, the damage will not be measured only in bad headlines or rough hearings, it will be measured in court orders that assume the worst—and in judges who start writing that assumption into law.
