Tom Goldstein Claims Prosecutors Have Repeatedly Misled Court

Lawyers for Scotusblog founder Tom Goldstein, indicted in January for tax evasion and making false statements on loan applications, have accused federal prosecutors of intentionally misleading the court.

Although Goldstein hasn’t been charged with obstruction of justice, the government has repeatedly made the accusation to justify restrictive bond conditions the appellate attorney is challenging.

In a Tuesday filing in support of his bid to compel the government to produce related grand jury testimony, Goldstein’s lawyers suggest the court consider sanctions “in the form of a rebuking the government on the record” for its lack of candor.

The government has claimed the Supreme Court litigator “offered things of value, including cryptocurrency, to a potential witness in the case,” saying he must have done it “to prevent the potential witness from assisting the investigation.”

But Goldstein said he offered the witness—his former office manager—a retention bonus to keep her on staff, so that she could assist him in responding to the government’s subpoenas. The assertion that the only possible inference from the facts is that he sought to obstruct the investigation is “ridiculous,” the filing said.

Goldstein was taken into custody for alleged bond violations in February after prosecutors claimed he’d engaged in prohibited transfers using cryptocurrecy accounts. He was released a few days later, after he presented evidence casting doubt on the government’s claims.

Grand Jury Testimony

According to Goldstein’s lawyers, the government’s opposition to his motion to compel the production of grand jury testimony, filed Monday, shows that the witness’s grand jury testimony contradicts the government obstruction claim.

The government said the office manager had explained that Goldstein “did not suggest that the witness not assist in the investigation,” and that she couldn’t testify as to his subjective intent in offering the money.

Prosecutors have claimed the witness would have knowledge that the attorney hired and provided health care coverage to four women “with whom he had or was pursuing personal relationships, when those women did little to no work.”

But Goldstein’s lawyers said the government knows that, in fact, three of the employees did perform significant work for the firm. The fourth employee was on the firm payroll for just five weeks.

The employee had gone to the emergency room two days after she was hired and went on unpaid medical leave shortly thereafter. When she was removed from payroll, the law firm’s benefits management company said they could keep her on the firm’s health insurance policy.

The appellate advocate also said the government’s lack of candor is part of a broader pattern and that forthcoming motions will show it made “flatly false statements” to the court in applications to extend the statute of limitations.

Goldstein is represented by Munger Tolles & Olson LLP

The case is United States v. Goldstein, D. Md., No. 8:25-cr-00006, 3/19/25.