Sham documents. Cherry-picked data. Flimsy logic.
Those were the recent condemnations of three federal judges in courtrooms sprawled across the country as they separately critiqued Trump administration explanations for some of the president’s expansive efforts to remake the federal government.
Judges tasked with the initial review of the more than 100 legal challenges to those efforts are not just considering the constitutionality of President Donald Trump’s actions. Some are also calling out the administration when they think government lawyers have been playing fast and loose with the facts.
Their criticism could become an issue if any of the challenges reach the Supreme Court. During the first Trump administration, the court blocked the Commerce Department from including a question about citizenship on the 2020 census after finding the agency hadn’t been forthcoming about its motivation.
“Reasoned decisionmaking under the Administrative Procedure Act calls for an explanation for agency action,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the 5-4 majority. “What was provided here was more of a distraction.”
The Republican majority in the House of Representatives has blocked an inquiry into Defense Secretary Pete...
