Defending Trump Policies in Court Leads to Criticism, Doubt and Punishment

[jerrymahoney]

Inside the Justice Department’s civil division, lawyers are squeezed between judges demanding answers and bosses’ instructions to protect the Trump agenda at all costs.

 

 

Career lawyers say they increasingly feel trapped between President Trump’s political appointees, like Attorney General Pam Bondi, and judges who demand comprehensible answers to basic questions.

 

April 7, 2025, 12:59 p.m. ET     NYTimes via https://archive.ph/hJokJ#selection-4533.0-4565.401

The Trump administration’s aggressive efforts to enact major elements of its agenda have led to a series of courtroom clashes between increasingly skeptical judges and the beleaguered lawyers responsible for defending the government’s positions, which some have come to see as indefensible.

The Justice Department’s thinned-out civil division has borne the brunt of the growing conflict. Inside the division, the strains of pushing the legal limits on topics as varied as mass deportations, spending power and punishing law firms are taking a major toll. Government litigators, their ranks increasingly depleted, often find themselves in court with few facts to defend policies they cannot explain, according to current and former officials.

Career lawyers representing the government have a long tradition of arguing for the goals of Republican or Democratic administrations, regardless of their personal views. What is different now, they say, is that they increasingly feel trapped between President Trump’s partisan political appointees, who insist on a maximalist approach, and judges who demand comprehensible answers to basic questions.