It's a legal principle called the presumption of regularity that legally requires the judge to assume that the government is acting in good faith when cases involving the government are heard.

The lawyers doing the litigation are not bound by it, but the judge is. The article mentions it by name in the very last paragraph.

"The presumption of regularity directs the courts to assume, unless clear evidence indicates differently, that government officials have properly discharged their duties, acted in good faith and followed required procedures."

It's a high evidentiary bar to overcome, but this judge had enough to throw it out. Pretty sure this decision, and others like it, are part of why Harmeet Dhillon is walking away from the Department of Justice now.

Police and courts are parallel entities and "criminal justice" basically falls apart if they don't play ball with each other. They aren't going to assume malfeseance from their own enforcers.

"Presumption of honesty" is the standard way for a court to treat government officials. For it to be officially revoked like this is actually a huge deal.

This is a good development. It's the kind of thing that they needed to have their ducks in order before they could do though.

It will be interesting to see what they do next.