**Trump Administration Faces Scrutiny Over Potential DOJ Misrepresentation in Oregon National Guard Case**
The Trump administration may be facing serious trouble as a court assesses whether the Department of Justice (DOJ) intentionally misrepresented facts, according to former federal prosecutor Joyce Vance.
The controversy stems from a recent decision by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which reinstated Federal District Judge Karin Immergut’s initial temporary restraining order. This order barred the Trump administration from deploying the Oregon National Guard to Portland amid ongoing unrest.
Over the weekend, Vance highlighted a key development: on Thursday, the state of Oregon filed a letter brief with the court pointing out what it described as “a material factual error by defendants on which the panel relied to grant a stay pending appeal.”
Vance explained the nature of the allegedly false claims. The court panel originally ruled in favor of the administration because it was convinced the administration had demonstrated “a colorable inability to execute federal law.” This is significant because such a finding is one of the necessary preconditions the president must establish to federalize National Guard troops.
However, Oregon’s letter contended that the DOJ’s argument was contradicted by material evidence it provided to the state during discovery on Wednesday evening. According to the state, prior representations made by the DOJ in court were false.
This discrepancy has placed the administration in a difficult position. As Vance pointed out, unless the government can satisfactorily explain the inconsistency, the court will likely investigate the source of the misrepresentation. “Deliberate false statements made to a court by a lawyer carry serious consequences,” she emphasized.
If it turns out that the government knowingly misled the court, it would undermine its position significantly. The Ninth Circuit is currently considering whether to rehear the case en banc, meaning before all the judges of the circuit. Vance noted that the panel could withdraw its earlier opinion if some judges believe the new information would affect the outcome on appeal.
Alternatively, if the en banc court proceeds, it might also take the updated evidence into account as it reevaluates the case.
As this legal battle unfolds, the Trump administration’s handling of the facts in court will remain under close scrutiny, with potentially significant consequences ahead.
https://www.rawstory.com/serious-consequences-trump-doj/
