Study finds courts' growing concern with DOJ

3 hours ago 4

This week on 60 Minutes, correspondent Scott Pelley reported on the Department of Justice. Over decades, the department has built a reputation of trust with the courts. But now, in the early months of the second Trump administration, it appears some judges have doubts.

Pelley spoke with Ryan Goodman, a law professor at New York University. Shortly after President Trump was inaugurated in January, Goodman began a project to examine lawsuits filed against the administration. Today, that case number sits at more than 400.

Ryan Goodman: So we track all of the over 400 cases involving the Trump administration. And we basically select the cases only on the basis of what the judges and the courts themselves have said. We make no interpretation of it ourselves. So, for example, I could look at certain cases and believe that, in my view, the government is not in compliance with a court order. But we only include the case if the court is very explicit that it is the view of the judge themselves. So, there are actually many other cases that could've been included, but we exclude those so that it's as objective as possible and just fact-driven.

Scott Pelley: Break the research down for us. What does your report find?

Ryan Goodman: We looked at three categories of cases in which the courts have said something very explicit about the government's conduct. The first category is a court calling out the government for non-compliance with its orders. That one was over 15 cases, which I found jaw-dropping. The second category is the court saying to the government, "You've provided me with false, or highly misleading information, including false sworn declarations." That was an extraordinary one of over 35 cases. And then the last one is a particular area of administrative law in which the courts will make a determination as to whether or not the government's conduct is arbitrary and capricious, meaning that it really is not taking into account trade-offs, it's not reasoned. And arbitrary and capricious findings, we found over 50 cases in which the courts have actually said that their finding is that the government likely engaged in arbitrary and capricious conduct.

Some cases fall into more than one category. And since we spoke with Goodman, his team has found even more cases where judges appointed by both Republican and Democratic presidents have criticized the Justice Department's work. In the most serious category, they've now found 20 cases where judges have questioned the government's compliance with their judicial orders.

Scott Pelley: How unusual is this?

Ryan Goodman: It's unbelievably shocking. Jaw-dropping. I don't have the words for it in some regards. The idea that you'd find this in so many different cases, and these are also some of the Justice Department lawyers are repeat players, and some of the judges are repeat players, but it's happening across the country.

Scott Pelley: What does this tell you about the Justice Department?

Ryan Goodman: So unfortunately, it suggests that the Justice Department is engaging in some of the most abhorrent behavior imaginable. And it's counterproductive for them. So I'm not even sure if they understand the long game because this is really about a relationship of trust with the courts.

Losing the trust of the courts, Goodman told us, has hurt the Justice Department.

Ryan Goodman: They get hurt in the short term as well as the long term. Short term, they need the courts to believe them. The Justice Department is not just a defendant. They're prosecuting cases. They want issues resolved their way on immigration, on sanctuary cities. Whatever the case might be, the Justice Department is hurting itself before the courts short term. And then I think long term, really significant damage in terms of this level of-- concerns about abuse within the Justice Department.

Scott Pelley: What's at stake?

Ryan Goodman: I think what's at stake is our system of justice. I think what's at stake is checks and balances within our system of government. I think the Constitution was basically predicated on the idea that these things would not happen. And the fact that they're happening in such rapid succession in a very short period of time, I think that means that the system really has to deal with an enormous stress.

The video above was edited by Scott Rosann.