Key Takeaways

• The Justice Department admitted it made a big FPS error in court.
• DOJ said it wrongly claimed nearly 25% of Federal Protective Services was sent to Portland.
• The actual number was about 13.1%, or 65 of 86 inspectors.
• This correction could affect the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Oregon v. Trump.
• Experts say the FPS error admission may shape future court reviews.

Late last week, the Justice Department surprised many by admitting it had made a major FPS error in its court filings. In a letter to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, the DOJ confessed that it misstated how many Federal Protective Services officers it redirected to Portland during unrest. Instead of saying nearly a quarter of the entire force moved there, it is now clear the true figure was just over 13%.

What the FPS error means for the case

When the DOJ first filed its brief, it listed “undisputed facts” about violence in Portland. Among them was the claim that almost 25% of Federal Protective Services (FPS) had to leave other duties and rush to the city. That number helped fuel President Trump’s narrative. He had said Portland was “burning down” and sent in the National Guard to help.

However, reporter Adam Klasfeld noticed something odd. In a letter to the Ninth Circuit, the DOJ now says that 65 of 86 FPS inspectors actually served in Portland. That means the FPS error shrank the real share to about 13.1%. The Justice Department’s updated filing reads, “This statement was incorrect.” It also says the agency deeply regrets the mistake.

Why the FPS error matters

First, accuracy is crucial in court. Judges rely on facts to make fair decisions. A big error like this can shake a judge’s trust. Second, the original claim backed the idea that Portland was a major crisis zone. If fewer officers were needed, the unrest might not have been as severe as portrayed. Finally, this correction could shape how the Ninth Circuit views the case on appeal and decide whether to hear it en banc—a process where all active judges review the case.

Background: The Portland unrest and the FPS error

In mid-2020, Portland saw large protests and some violence. Federal Protective Services protects federal buildings and personnel. As unrest grew, President Trump deployed the National Guard and praised FPS efforts. He repeatedly claimed Portland was “on fire.” For instance, he said, “I looked at Portland over the weekend. The place is burning down.”

These statements set the stage for the FPS error. The DOJ argued that so many FPS agents left their normal posts it threatened security elsewhere. They said a quarter of the entire force pitched in one city. But the new letter shows the real numbers fell well below that mark.

How the error was discovered

Adam Klasfeld, who runs a court-focused news outlet, spotted the problem. He noted that the DOJ’s letter corrected its earlier submission, saying it had wrongly calculated the share of FPS personnel. Klasfeld pointed out the agency’s apology: “Defendants take with the utmost seriousness their obligation to provide … accurate and up-to-date information.”

Soon after, international law expert Ben Farley highlighted the change on social media. He wrote that the FPS error correction could influence the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Oregon v. Trump. The case challenges federal actions in Portland and other cities under an emergency powers law.

Potential effects on the Ninth Circuit appeal

When a court hears a case en banc, every active judge on the Ninth Circuit can weigh in. Parties usually ask for en banc review only if the stakes are high or if there is a split in past decisions. Now, with the FPS error in mind, judges might rethink whether the situation in Portland justified certain federal measures.

Because the original “quarter-of-the-force” claim seemed dramatic, it may have shaped early opinions. If that claim loses weight, some judges could feel the case deserves fresh looks at the facts. Equally, opponents of federal action might argue less urgent conditions existed than first portrayed.

An expert view on the FPS error correction

Ben Farley, who follows international law, called the FPS error correction “significant.” He believes it may alter how judges view the urgency of federal intervention. In court, slight shifts in fact patterns can lead to big changes in rulings. Farley stressed that an honest correction, while awkward, helps maintain the integrity of the judicial process.

Moreover, some legal analysts say the FPS error might prompt further scrutiny of government filings in high-profile cases. After all, accuracy in legal briefs is not optional. Judges expect lawyers to double-check figures before sending them to court.

What’s next after the FPS error admission

First, lawyers for both sides will review how this change affects their arguments. Those challenging federal actions in Portland will likely stress that the unrest was less severe. On the other hand, government lawyers may argue the FPS error was a simple oversight and does not alter the broader picture of unrest.

Second, the Ninth Circuit will decide whether to schedule more oral arguments or even agree to an en banc hearing. If they do take the case en banc, it could delay a final decision but would give more judges a say.

Finally, observers will watch how the DOJ handles similar filings. This FPS error shows that simple math mistakes can lead to major corrections. Agencies may now invest more time in fact-checking before filing new briefs.

Why this story matters to you

This episode highlights the power of accurate data in legal battles. It shows how a single percentage point can change the narrative. It also reminds us that in high-stakes disputes, every detail counts. For students learning about law, government, or politics, the FPS error case offers a clear lesson: facts matter.

Furthermore, this story reveals how fast news and court filings move today. Reporters and experts often catch mistakes within days. Courts then update their records to reflect the truth. This dynamic keeps the justice system honest and transparent.

Key terms explained

Federal Protective Services: A division of the Department of Homeland Security that protects federal buildings and staff.
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals: A U.S. federal appeals court covering western states. It reviews decisions from district courts.
En banc review: When all active judges of an appeals court hear a case together, rather than a smaller panel.

Frequently Asked Questions

What was the original FPS error claim?

The DOJ originally said almost a quarter of its Federal Protective Services force went to Portland. That turned out to be wrong.

How many FPS officers actually went to Portland?

Sixty-five out of eighty-six inspectors, or about 13.1%, were sent to Portland.

Why did the FPS error matter?

The inflated figure suggested a more severe crisis in Portland, which affected how the court viewed federal responses.

What does “en banc review” mean for this case?

If the Ninth Circuit agrees to an en banc hearing, all active judges will consider the case, rather than a small panel, which could change the outcome.