The Judge Who Won’t Bend the Knee: Pakistani American Zia M. Faruqui’s Lonely Stand Against Trump’s Justice Department

In the ornate courtrooms of the E. Barrett Prettyman Federal Courthouse, where the weight of federal justice has been dispensed for decades, U.S. Magistrate Judge Zia M. Faruqui has emerged as an unlikely—and increasingly vocal—critic of his former employer: the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia.

Week after week, as President Trump’s crime crackdown floods Washington’s federal courts with arrests made by National Guard troops and federal agents, Faruqui has watched with growing alarm as prosecutors bring cases he believes violate constitutional rights and abandon long-established legal principles. His response has been extraordinary: a series of scathing written orders and pointed courtroom remarks that accuse the Justice Department of breaking “decades-long norms and the rule of law.”

“There’s no credibility left,” Faruqui declared from the bench in early September, according to The Washington Post, as he upbraided prosecutors for their handling of the deluge of cases stemming from Trump’s local policing surge.

The most dramatic confrontation came Monday, September 30, when Faruqui pre-emptively refused to accept an indictment after learning that prosecutors had performed what he described as an “end run” around the normal course of justice, according to The New York Times. After failing to secure an indictment from a federal grand jury, prosecutors took federal charges to a local grand jury in Superior Court, which returned an indictment.

In a scathing order filed in Federal District Court, Faruqui wrote that he had never heard of such a thing, saying that what appeared to be grand jury forum shopping had broken “decades-long norms and the rule of law.”

“At a minimum, this is very unseemly,” Judge Faruqui wrote, according to the Times. “More than likely, it is unlawful.”

The case involved Kevontae Stewart, who was arrested on September 17 after authorities approached him in a parked car and smelled what they described as marijuana. When officers asked Stewart to exit the vehicle, he allegedly fled, dropping a black pistol. A federal grand jury declined to indict Stewart on charges of being a felon in unlawful possession of a firearm—an extremely unusual outcome, as grand juries typically go along with prosecutors.

What happened next shocked even the experienced jurist: Rather than trying again with another federal grand jury or dropping the case, prosecutors took the federal charge to a local grand jury and secured the indictment they had failed to obtain the first time.

“Typically, when a federal grand jury refuses to return an indictment in a case, either the government takes the message as a warning to go no further or, hopefully in only the rarest of cases, presents the indictment again to another federal grand jury,” Faruqui wrote in his order. “To this judge’s knowledge, what has never happened before is doing an end run around the federal grand jury completely. Yet that is what has happened today.”

A Pattern of Failures and Overreach

The Stewart case represents just one instance in what has become a pattern troubling the magistrate judge. According to the Times, in the past month federal prosecutors in Washington have been repeatedly embarrassed as nearly a dozen grand juries have rejected their efforts to secure indictments against people caught up in Trump’s plan to use federal troops and agents to crack down on local crime.

Faruqui noted the bitter irony of the situation. According to NBC Washington, he said it is ironic that “an occupying force is at the mercy of the occupants” serving on the grand juries. He added that there is no precedent for what is happening at the courthouse over the past few weeks.

During his prosecutorial career, he handled some of the most complex and high-profile cases imaginable: terrorists’ use of cryptocurrency, North Korean weapons proliferation, darknet sites dedicated to child exploitation, and theft of antiquities.

In another case, Faruqui demanded answers after prosecutors made what he called an “inexcusable” attempt to cancel a preliminary hearing for defendant Edward Dana minutes before it was scheduled because they had filed lesser charges in a lower court, according to NBC News. He sharply questioned whether the Justice Department was trying to avoid judicial scrutiny of weak cases by bumping them down to local courts.

Judge Faruqui has accused prosecutors of overcharging people ensnared in Trump’s local crime initiative and bowing to pressure to bring criminal cases at the expense of protecting defendants’ legal rights, according to the Times. He said prosecutors are routinely bringing cases that don’t belong in federal court and needlessly keeping defendants in jail, The Washington Post reported.

The judge also commended prosecutor Benjamin Helfand, who appeared seeking to drop a case, saying the U.S. Attorney’s office badly needs prosecutors who know the difference between an illegal search and a legal one, according to Above the Law. “If the system is going to crumble, the last line of defense is going to be line prosecutors,” Faruqui said.

The Man Behind the Gavel

Faruqui’s willingness to speak out carries particular weight given his background as a career federal prosecutor. According freelance journalist Elaine Pasquini, he was appointed as U.S. Magistrate Judge on September 14, 2020, becoming the first Pakistani American to serve in that role. He received both his BA and JD from Georgetown University.

Following law school, he worked as a litigation associate at the law firm Willkie Farr & Gallagher in Washington, focusing on government investigations and general commercial litigation. He then served for twelve years as a federal prosecutor in the U.S. Attorney’s Offices in St. Louis and Washington, D.C.

During his prosecutorial career, according to the Muslim Bar Association of New York, he handled some of the most complex and high-profile cases imaginable: terrorists’ use of cryptocurrency, North Korean weapons proliferation, darknet sites dedicated to child exploitation, and theft of antiquities. He represented the Department of Justice at numerous conferences across the globe on financial crimes, cryptocurrency, and national security issues.

This deep prosecutorial experience makes his current criticisms all the more significant. He knows the system from the inside, understands the pressures prosecutors face, and recognizes when those pressures are leading to constitutional violations.

Faruqui is also a member of the Board of Advisors of the Muslim Americans in Public Service organization and serves on the Advisory Board of Georgetown Law School.

The Pirro Pushback

U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro has not taken the criticism quietly. In a statement responding to Faruqui’s rebuke about the grand jury forum shopping, she said: “Instead of being an activist judge, Judge Faruqui should spend more time focused on his cases, so that he doesn’t get overruled so often. The submission of an indictment to the court is a ministerial act over which Judge Faruqui has no additional powers of judicial review,” according to the Times.

After Faruqui’s broader criticisms of her office’s handling of the surge cases, Pirro told The Washington Post that the judge “has allowed his politics to consistently cloud his judgment.” Fox News reported that Pirro fired back at Faruqui’s remarks, defending her prosecutors’ work.

The public dispute between a sitting magistrate judge and the U.S. Attorney represents an extraordinary breakdown in the traditional collegiality between the bench and federal prosecutors—a relationship that typically operates on what Faruqui described as “the presumption of regularity,” the trust courts have long conferred on government lawyers.

“This only deepens the growing mistrust of the actions of prosecutors,” Faruqui wrote in his order, according to the Times. “That is a sentiment that was once unthinkable, but the irregular is now the regular.”

Broader Implications

The confrontation in Washington may be a preview of similar problems emerging in other cities. According to the Times, grand jury failures have occurred not only in Washington, where Trump has deployed the National Guard alongside a large number of federal agents, but also in Los Angeles, where he has used both troops and agents to help with immigration arrests. An influx of federal forces is now set to arrive in Memphis, raising questions about whether it could result in similar problems with grand juries.

Faruqui—one of four magistrates at the district court in Washington—finds himself in a difficult position. As The Washington Post reported, he is a former prosecutor criticizing his former colleagues, a Pakistani American judge appointed during a Democratic administration now challenging a Republican president’s law enforcement priorities, and a magistrate judge potentially at odds with district court judges who may ultimately review his decisions.

Yet he appears undeterred. As a curative measure in the Stewart case, Faruqui asked prosecutors to file papers by Friday explaining their actions and telling him whether he even had the legal authority to accept an indictment on federal charges from a local grand jury, according to the Times.

A Lonely Stand

What makes Faruqui’s position particularly notable is that he appears to be largely alone among federal judges in Washington in speaking out so forcefully and publicly. While other judges may share his concerns privately, he has been willing to put those concerns in written orders that become part of the public record and to make pointed remarks from the bench that reporters can quote.

This willingness to speak truth to power comes with risks. Pirro’s accusations of political bias could influence how appellate courts view his rulings. His relationship with prosecutors who regularly appear before him has been strained, potentially complicating the day-to-day administration of justice. And his public profile makes him a target for criticism from those who support Trump’s law enforcement approach.

Yet Faruqui seems driven by a conviction that silence in the face of what he views as constitutional violations and erosion of legal norms would be a greater betrayal of his judicial oath than any discomfort caused by speaking out.

Perhaps most significantly, Faruqui’s criticisms highlight a fundamental problem: the erosion of trust between the judiciary and prosecutors. That trust—the “presumption of regularity”—has traditionally been a cornerstone of the federal criminal justice system. Judges have assumed that prosecutors operate in good faith, follow established procedures, and respect constitutional rights even when pursuing legitimate law enforcement goals.

When that presumption breaks down, the entire system becomes more adversarial, slower, and less efficient. Every prosecutorial decision becomes subject to greater scrutiny. Every motion requires more extensive briefing. Every hearing takes longer as judges demand explanations for procedures that were once routine.

“At a minimum, this is very unseemly,” Faruqui wrote about the grand jury forum shopping. “More than likely, it is unlawful.”

That a sitting federal magistrate judge—a former prosecutor himself—feels compelled to write such words about the actions of federal prosecutors represents a crisis moment for the administration of justice in the nation’s capital.

As Trump’s crime crackdown continues and more cases flood the federal courts, the confrontation between Faruqui and the U.S. Attorney’s Office seems likely to intensify. The fundamental questions he has raised—about constitutional rights, prosecutorial overreach, and the proper limits of law enforcement power—will only become more pressing.

Whether other judges will join Faruqui in speaking out publicly remains to be seen. But his willingness to put his concerns in writing, to demand answers from prosecutors, and to refuse to rubber-stamp indictments that he believes violate legal norms has already made him a central figure in one of the most significant confrontations between the federal judiciary and the executive branch in recent memory.

For now, Zia M. Faruqui sits in his courtroom in the E. Barrett Prettyman Federal Courthouse, making his lonely stand for what he believes are the fundamental principles of American justice—principles he fears are being sacrificed in the rush to prosecute cases that may generate headlines but lack constitutional foundation.

“The irregular is now the regular,” he wrote. It is a warning that resonates far beyond his courtroom, a challenge to all those who believe the rule of law should mean more than the rule of those in power.

This story was aggregated by AI from several news reports and edited by American Kahani’s News Desk.