Which federal judges found the U.S. government provided false information in at least 35 cases and when?

1. What the sources actually document: judges’ loss of confidence, not a 35‑case tally

Several pieces in the supplied reporting describe a severe erosion of judicial confidence in the Department of Justice rooted in mistakes, misleading statements, and legal tactics judges described as troubling, with a federal magistrate labeling those missteps part of a broader pattern ^[1], and Judge Amy Berman Jackson writing that the court was “left with little confidence that the defense can be trusted to tell the truth about anything” in a preliminary injunction order ^[2]; none of those items, however, attaches the specific figure “35 cases” to any judge’s formal finding ^{[1] [2]}.

2. Specific judges cited who criticized government conduct and what they said

The reporting names several judges who have publicly rebuked the government: a federal magistrate in a Reuters story characterized prosecutorial errors as part of an unprecedented pattern and linked them to a high dismissal rate in D.C. matters ^[1], Judge Amy Berman Jackson made a blunt statement about a defense’s trustworthiness in Newsweek’s coverage ^[2], and Chief Judge James E. Boasberg issued opinions finding probable cause of willful disobedience of judicial decrees in matters involving deportations and local prosecution tactics ^{[2] [3]}; these citations document judicial alarm and formal adverse rulings, but none, in the snippets provided, is quoted as concluding “false information” was supplied in 35+ separate cases.

3. Why the “35 cases” figure cannot be confirmed from these sources

The supplied corpus contains robust reporting about judicial pushback—dismissals, injunctions, and pointed language about credibility—but does not include any article, opinion, or court order excerpt that enumerates 35 instances in which a judge specifically found the government had provided false information ^{[1] [2] [3]}. Journalistic pieces here refer to patterns, dismissal rates (a 21% dismissal rate in D.C. referenced by Reuters), and individual judges’ harsh language, but those are distinct from a quantified count of “false information” findings tied to a particular judge and date ^{[1] [2]}.

4. Alternate interpretations and possible implicit agendas in coverage

The sources come from outlets that emphasize different aspects of the story—Reuters focuses on prosecutorial missteps and dismissal statistics ^[1], Newsweek highlights judicial indignation and quotes that underscore loss of trust ^[2], and The New York Times examines procedural rulings by judges like Boasberg ^[3]; each outlet’s framing could push readers toward seeing a systemic problem, but without an explicit, sourced tally of 35 cases in which a single judge made a formal false‑information finding, attributing that precise claim to any one judge would exceed what the sources support ^{[1] [2] [3]}. If a reader encountered the “35 cases” phrase elsewhere, the supplied reporting does not corroborate it; accordingly, further documentary digging—reading the underlying court opinions or a comprehensive investigative timeline—would be required to substantiate that exact figure.

5. Bottom line and reporting limitation

The bottom line: the provided reporting documents multiple federal judges sharply criticizing DOJ conduct and issuing adverse rulings, but it does not identify any federal judge who explicitly found the government provided false information in at least 35 cases nor does it give a date for such a finding; the available sources therefore cannot confirm the assertion as stated ^{[1] [2] [3]}. If confirmation is required, primary court opinions and docket-level research would be the next necessary step, a limitation the current reporting set cannot overcome.