Bondi and company have torched the DOJ's reputation for integrity.
Harry Litman
Federal judges have begun writing about the Department of Justice in terms that would have been unimaginable a few years ago. I do not mean pointed criticism of a filing or a sharp exchange with a line prosecutor. Courts are now taking aim at the Department as an institution—questioning the credibility of entire offices and describing misconduct as widespread, top-driven, and intentional.
It’s common for certain courts to respond harshly to certain government positions or legal arguments. What makes this moment different is the register. Judges now describe the conduct as knowing, not mistaken; systemic, not episodic; and grave enough to warrant sanctions once reserved for extreme defiance.
For generations, whatever one thought of DOJ’s arguments, the baseline assumption held: the Department acted in good faith and would follow the courts’ rulings.
That assumption has given way, displaced by a sustained pattern of noncompliance and escalating confrontation with the courts.
https://harrylitman.substack.com/p/it-was-nice-while-it-lasted