Trump National Guard case at Supreme Court is a fight over basic facts
(snip)
"In addition to demonstrating a potential lack of candor" by Hott and Parra, Perry wrote in her decision, "it also calls into question their ability to accurately assess the facts."
In the U.S. legal system, trial judges and juries have the primary role in fact-finding, with higher courts generally deferring to those conclusions.
"Here, the district judge carefully detailed the factual record and found it 'impossible to align' with the statements in the affidavits submitted by the administration. The judge also raised serious credibility concerns with those statements," said Brandon Garrett, a Duke University School of Law expert in legal evidence.
Garrett said it would be "all the more problematic for the Supreme Court to engage in fact-finding which is outside of its role as an appellate court."
(snip)
https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/trump-national-guard-case-supreme-court-is-fight-over-basic-facts-2025-10-28/