Federal judges across the United States are increasingly questioning whether President Donald Trump's Justice Department and its lawyers can be trusted or will obey judicial orders, according to a report from Democracy Docket.

The report documents mounting frustration among judges appointed by presidents of both parties, as clashes over immigration, press access and federal projects strain a longstanding legal convention known as the presumption of regularity. The principle limits judicial scrutiny by presuming that government officials act lawfully and in good faith. The doctrine has long underpinned federal litigation, allowing many cases to turn on legal questions rather than on the credibility of government officials. Legal experts say the administration's disregard for the rule of law and its frequent confrontations with judges are eroding that assumption.

“Judges are figuring out that either the attorneys can’t or won’t manage the Trump administration,” constitutional law professor David Schultz told Democracy Docket.

The most recent confrontation involves U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes, who angrily rebuked Justice Department lawyers and said she felt betrayed after they removed more than 500 trees from Washington's historic East Potomac Golf Links. Reyes had repeatedly asked the department for advance notice before making irreversible changes to the historic golf course. Instead, the work went ahead, with more than 400 trees removed, prompting the judge to question whether officials had deliberately withheld information.

“You did your absolute worst,” Reyes told government attorneys in regard to their efforts to notify the court.

The administration maintained that the removal followed an older landscaping plan and was separate from Trump's proposed renovation. The Justice Department later sought to remove Reyes from the case, alleging bias, but she rejected the request, leaving the dispute and her questions about the department's candor on her docket.

In a separate clash, Trump-appointed U.S. District Judge Timothy Kelly blocked the administration's effort to ban White House access for reporters from CNN, MS NOW and Politico. Kelly sided with the networks, questioning the government's claim of national security risks and finding that the restrictions likely violated the First Amendment.

The growing distrust of the Justice Department is also changing how judges draft their orders. In one, U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis now requires 30 days' advance notice before the administration activates a portal involving state citizenship lists, a measure intended to preserve judicial review amid threats of election interference. Advance-notice terms of this kind give a court a concrete deadline against which compliance can be measured. Xinis previously accused administration officials of deliberately defying orders in the wrongful deportation case involving Kilmar Abrego Garcia.

Meanwhile, U.S. District Judge James Boasberg continues to pursue a contempt investigation over El Salvador-bound deportation flights carrying Venezuelans despite an order restricting them.

Retired federal judge Jeremy Fogel told Democracy Docket that the administration operates on the view that “the most important thing is to win.”

Experts say the real danger is that if the courts can no longer take the government at its word, they will have to adopt a far more rigorous approach — demanding more evidence and documentation and remaining on the lookout for attempts to circumvent their decisions. How the administration meets requirements like Xinis's notice rule, and where Boasberg's contempt inquiry leads, are among the details to watch.