Federal Judges Blow the Whistle on DOJ Deception: 35+ Cases of Lies and “Sham” Evidence
By Brian Allen
The Allen Analysis is an independent investigative newsroom documenting how power, money, and institutions collide, and publishing the record when the public is told to look away.
For decades, federal judges treated the U.S. government like a special kind of litigant. Not because judges are naïve, but because the Justice Department was supposed to have one non-negotiable currency: credibility.
That currency is getting torched in real time.
A 60 Minutes investigation highlighted more than 35 cases in which federal judges said the government provided false information, including false sworn declarations “time and again,” according to NYU law professor Ryan Goodman.
That is not “lawyer stuff.” That is not “technical error.” That is the government walking into federal court, raising its right hand, and selling judges a story that collapses the second anyone asks for receipts.
“Over 35 cases” is not a headline. It is a pattern.
What the “35+ cases” actually are
The cleanest way to understand this is through the Goodman-led tracking work (published via Just Security) that compiles cases where judges themselves explicitly questioned the government’s truthfulness, accuracy, or good faith.
This matters because it is not punditry. It is not Twitter. It is not “some guy says.”
It is judges putting it in orders and on transcripts.
And the allegations are not all one flavor. They cluster into repeatable misconduct categories:
False sworn declarations used to win emergency rulings
Evidence problems judges call “sham,” “misleading,” or “unsupported”
Noncompliance with court orders followed by legal gymnastics to justify it
Agency narratives that fall apart under basic cross-checking
The scandal here is not a single bad filing. It is the volume, the spread, and the confidence.
Case Spotlight 1: A judge says the court relied on false information “twice”
One of the most serious categories is when false government claims affect life-or-death stakes.
In immigration litigation, a federal judge described being given false information that the court relied on “twice,” to the detriment of someone “at risk of serious and irreparable harm.”
Read that again.
Not “confusing paperwork.” Not “unclear record.”
False information, relied on twice, where the downside is someone gets harmed because a judge believed the United States.
When a judge says the court relied on false information “twice,” the issue is no longer advocacy. It is institutional failure.
Case Spotlight 2: “Probable cause” for contempt over deportation flights
In another high-profile battle, Judge James Boasberg found probable cause that officials willfully disobeyed a court order related to deportation flights, raising the specter of criminal contempt and escalating the separation-of-powers stakes.
This is the “you can’t do that” phase of constitutional government.
And the government response pattern, as reported, is familiar: delay, narrow, evade, argue jurisdictional technicalities, and hope the news cycle moves on.
Courts can tolerate losing arguments. What they cannot tolerate is losing trust.
Case Spotlight 3: The whistleblower allegation and the culture behind it
You cannot understand 35+ cases without asking the obvious question: how does this keep happening?
One answer comes from the whistleblower narrative that entered public reporting: a longtime DOJ lawyer, Erez Reuveni, alleged he was fired after refusing to sign a filing he believed contained false statements in litigation connected to the deportation of Kilmar Abrego Garcia.
Whether every detail withstands scrutiny over time, the larger point is unavoidable: multiple judges are already documenting credibility breakdowns across cases, and a whistleblower is describing internal pressure that rhymes with what judges are seeing externally.
If you keep “winning” by breaking the court’s ability to trust you, you are not winning. You are detonating the system that everyone else depends on.
Why this is different: the “presumption of regularity” is collapsing
The legal system quietly runs on a basic assumption: the government will not casually lie to the court.
That assumption has a name: the presumption of regularity.
What makes these cases so dangerous is that judges are signaling, in plain English, that the presumption is no longer automatic. The government is getting treated like any other litigant, and in some courtrooms, like a litigant on probation.
That is not symbolism. That is operational.
It changes how judges evaluate emergency requests, deference to agencies, and credibility calls in fast-moving cases.
What happens next: sanctions, referrals, and the slow grind of consequences
Here is the hard truth.
Courts are traditionally cautious about punishing government lawyers. Judges prefer corrections to chaos. But contempt findings, credibility determinations, and documented falsehoods build a record that can lead to:
Sanctions
Ethics referrals
Dismissals
Evidentiary exclusions
Court-ordered remedial actions
Boasberg’s contempt trajectory alone shows how quickly this can go from “stern rebuke” to “this is now a constitutional collision.”
The AllenAnalysis Bottom Line
A democracy cannot survive on vibes. It survives on enforceable rules. And one of the most basic rules is this: do not lie to the court.
The reason the 35+ cases matter is not because they make the DOJ look bad.
They matter because they tell every ordinary person watching that the government is testing whether truth is optional when power is on the line.
If judges are saying “we cannot trust you,” the system is already in triage.
And if the public treats that as normal, the next phase is not “politics.”
It is collapse.
If you want to read the receipts
Sources and further reading (primary reporting and compiled case tracking):
CBS News / 60 Minutes coverage describing 35+ cases and Prof. Ryan Goodman’s findings.
Just Security: Goodman-led compilation and analysis of cases raising presumption-of-regularity concerns and judicial credibility findings.
Associated Press: coverage of Judge Boasberg’s contempt-related findings over deportation flights.
Associated Press: reporting on DOJ whistleblower allegations involving Erez Reuveni.