At this point, this is strictly a hypothetical question. But a N.Y. federal judge has raised the possibility that a 2009 Supreme Court decision on immigration may have hinged on an assertion by the government that is not supported by the facts. The judge is Jed Rakoff, who made headlines last year for rejecting a $285 million settlement between Citigroup and the agency. From his opinion on the immigration case:
When the Solicitor General of the United States makes a representation to the Supreme Court, trustworthiness is presumed. Here, however, plaintiffs seek to determine whether one such representation was accurate or whether, as it seems, the Government’s lawyers were engaged in a bit of a shuffle.
The Department of Justice brief in question was filed by the Bush administration in January 2009.
