More: The dissolution of these traditional bonds of trust " known in legal circles as the presumption of regularity " goes well beyond judges' use of blunt words " "egregious," "brazen," "lawless" " to describe the various parts of Mr. Trump's power-grabbing policy agenda.

Ultimately, legal experts say, the actions that caused such doubts among judges about the department and those who represent it could have a more systemic effect and erode the healthy functioning of the courts.

"I think people don't fully appreciate how much the ability of the legal system to work on a daily basis rests on the government's credibility," said Stephen I. Vladeck, a Georgetown University law professor. "Without that credibility, it's going to be harder for the government to do anything in court " even ordinary things. All of a sudden, you're going to have courts second-guessing things that they wouldn't have before."

While it is impossible to know for sure how deeply this distrust has set in among judges across the country, a number of judges in recent weeks have openly questioned the fundamental honesty and credibility of Justice Department lawyers in ways that would have been unthinkable only months ago.

In June, for instance, an order was unsealed in Federal District Court in Washington showing Magistrate Judge Zia M. Faruqui ripping into prosecutors after they tried to convince him that he needed to be "highly deferential" to their request to keep sealed a search warrant in an ordinary criminal case.

"Blind deference to the government?" Judge Faruqui wrote. "That is no longer a thing. Trust that has been earned over generations has been lost in weeks."

After all, as the judge pointed out, Justice Department lawyers under Mr. Trump have done much to destroy the confidence normally afforded them in court.

They have fired prosecutors who worked on Mr. Trump's two criminal cases, he said. They have attacked the charges brought against the rioters who stormed the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, as a witch hunt. And they have violated judicial orders in cases stemming from Mr. Trump's deportation policies and from his efforts to freeze federal grants.

"These norms being broken must have consequences," Judge Faruqui concluded. "High deference is out; trust but verify is in."

Even more FTA: Judges are not the only players in the legal system who have shown a measure of distrust in the Justice Department. In an almost unheard-of move, federal grand juries in Los Angeles have been refusing to indict many defendants whom prosecutors have sought to charge in connection with immigration protests, according to recent news reports.

That situation underscored how the courts can work successfully only if people outside of government " jurors and witnesses, for instance " believe that the Justice Department is acting honestly, said Daniel C. Richman, a law professor at Columbia who recently wrote in The New York Times about the "credibility crisis" the department is facing.

"When the government loses credibility, you see it clearly in the reactions of other players in the legal system," Mr. Richman said. "That's the road we're on for now " unless something changes soon."