By John Q. Hosedrinker 
In a recent legal battle over the use of National Guard troops, the Trump administration initially secured a win when a 9th Circuit panel stayed a temporary restraining order issued by a U.S. District Judge. However, the victory was short-lived as Oregon attorneys alerted the appellate court to a factual error, revealing the government exaggerated the number of federal officers deployed. The court relied on the inaccurate information, but the 9th Circuit swiftly paused the panel’s stay of the first restraining order. This occurred after the government admitted that the number of troops used was significantly less than originally claimed.
Read the original article here
9th Circuit reverses victory for Trump admin in National Guard case after feds get caught lying. This whole situation just screams, “Don’t lie to the judges!” It seems like a pretty straightforward case of the government getting caught with its hand in the cookie jar, and now they’re paying the price. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a previous ruling after discovering that the Trump administration had misled them about the number of federal officers deployed to Portland, Oregon. This deception, whether intentional or not, fundamentally undermined the legal basis for the earlier decision.
The core of the issue boils down to a significant discrepancy in the numbers. The administration, in their arguments to the court, claimed they had redeployed a considerable number of Federal Protective Service officers – we’re talking around 115 – to address the situation in Portland. Based on this assertion, the court made a decision. However, the truth, as revealed by Oregon officials, was dramatically different. The actual number of officers on the ground was far less, somewhere in the range of 20 to 30. This drastic difference in numbers completely changed the context. The judges, who had initially been swayed by the claim of overwhelming forces, realized that the situation wasn’t what they were led to believe.
So, why does the number matter so much? It gets to the heart of the legal arguments and the justification for the actions. The administration used the argument that a massive contingent of federal officers were already deployed and couldn’t contain the situation, thus the National Guard was needed. But when it turned out that the number of officers was significantly lower than claimed, the argument for deploying the National Guard fell apart. The court’s initial decision was based on a false premise. The administration effectively made it seem as though they had exhausted all other options before seeking additional help. The discovery of the lie essentially rendered their plea for assistance baseless.
Judges, it’s worth repeating, have a deep-seated aversion to being misled. It undermines the integrity of the judicial process. It’s not just about the numbers; it’s about trust. Court proceedings hinge on the assumption that both sides are presenting the truth. When that assumption is broken, the entire foundation crumbles. Judges hate being made to look like they’ve been taken for a ride. In this case, it appears the judges felt that the administration had abused their trust and disrespected the court. They essentially rescinded their earlier decision as a result, which is a big deal in the legal world.
It also raises the question of consequences. What happens when the government gets caught lying to a judge? It’s not just a matter of a reversed decision. In theory, there could be repercussions for the lawyers involved. Some might say this could be considered perjury or contempt of court. These are serious legal matters that could lead to sanctions, referral to the bar, and even disbarment. While the administration may claim it’s fake news, the truth is that lawyers are required to be honest with the court.
It’s clear that this administration seems to have a pattern of stretching the truth. This incident is just one example of a trend. The lack of transparency and the casual approach to accuracy is alarming. The case is a stark reminder of the importance of checking facts and scrutinizing statements made by those in power. It also highlights the crucial role of the courts in holding the government accountable. Even if the consequences are light, the fact that the administration’s actions were exposed and overturned is a victory for those who value truth and transparency. The whole affair is a cautionary tale about the importance of telling the truth, especially in the courtroom. It seems they underestimated the intelligence and scrutiny of the judiciary.