Trump's DOJ shocks with 'significant' walk-back of court claim
The Justice Department was forced to walk back a significant claim it made in court that proved false.
In submitting a list of "undisputed facts," the Justice Department alleged that the situation in Oregon was so dangerous "that nearly a quarter" of Federal Protective Services had to be diverted to Portland.
Trump deployed the National Guard to Portland and has made baseless claims that the city was "burning down."
“I looked at Portland over the weekend. The place is burning down, just burning down," Trump said last week. “You look at a place like Portland, it’s just — it’s ridiculous, when they say that there’s no problem. The place is — it was on fire over the weekend.”
Adam Klasfeld, who runs "All Rise News," noted the letter flagging the error was sent in a letter to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. It turns out that it was more like around 13.1%. That amounts to "65 of the 86 individuals employed to Portland were inspectors."
"Relatedly, we stated in our supplemental brief that 'it is undisputed that nearly a quarter of the agency’s entire FPS capacity had to be redirected over a relatively short period to a single location in one medium-sized American city due to the unrest there.” ECF No. 69.1 at 30. This statement was incorrect," the letter confesses.
Saying a quarter of the entire Federal Protective Services may seem like a huge number. Whereas, citing 65 people doesn't sound as significant.
"Defendants’ declarations explain in detail why the surge of FPS personnel in response to violence and unrest is unsustainable. But defendants take with the utmost seriousness their obligation to provide the Court with accurate and up-to-date information..." it continued.
As Klasfeld highlighted, the DOJ said that they "deeply regret the errors."
International law expert Ben Farley reposted the update on Bluesky, noting that it is a "significant revision of factual position from DOJ with potentially significant implications for the 9th Cir. panel's decision in Oregon v. Trump--and maybe the 9th Cir.'s decision to take (or not) the case en banc."
En Banc is a request for everyone on the court to weigh in on the matter.