GOVERNMENT
ACCOUNTABILITY
PROJECT
1612 K Street NW Suite #808
Washington, DC, 20006
(202) 457-0034
whistleblower.org
June 24, 2025
Sent via electronic mail
Michael E. Horowitz
Inspector General
U.S. Department of Justice
Office of the Inspector General
950 PennsylvaniaAvenue NW
Washington, D.C. 20530
Jamieson Greer
Acting Special Counsel
U.S. Office of Special Counsel
1730 M Street, NW, Suite 218
Washington, D.C. 20036
Honorable Chuck Grassley, Chair
Honorable Richard J. Durbin, Ranking Member
U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary
Washington, D.C. 20510
Honorable Jim Jordan, Chair
Honorable Jamie Raskin, Ranking Member
U.S. House Committee on the Judiciary
Washington, D.C. 20515
Re:
Protected Whistleblower Disclosure of Erez Reuveni Regarding Violation of Laws,
Rules & Regulations, Abuse of Authority, and Substantial and Specific Danger to
Health and Safety at the Department of Justice
Dear All:
We, the Government Accountability Project and Gilbert Employment Law, P.C., represent
Mr. Erez Reuveni, formerly the Acting Deputy Director for the Office of Immigration Litigation
(OIL) of the Department of Justice (DOJ), and a whistleblower. Mr. Reuveni presents the
following disclosures to your attention for your respective offices to take appropriate oversight
action.
Between March 14, 2025, and April 5, 2025, Mr. Reuveni, almost immediately after
receiving notice of his promotion to serve as Acting Deputy Director of OIL, became aware ofthe
plans ofDOJ leadership to resist court orders that would impede potentially illegal efforts todeport
noncitizens, and further became aware of the details to execute those plans.
On April 4, 2025, after raising concerns internally to his chain of command for nearly three
weeks regarding the government's compliance with court orders and candor to the courts, Mr.
Reuveni appeared before Judge Paula Xinis , United States District Court Judge in the District of
Maryland, on behalf of the government in the case of Mr. Kilmar Abrego Garcia. During that
appearance, Mr. Reuveni candidly and truthfully informed the court, based on the evidentiary
record, thatMr.Abrego Garcia's removal from the United States was a mistake. Later that evening,
Mr. Reuveni refused directions from his superiors to file a brief misrepresenting those facts tothe
Page 1 of27court. As a result, Mr. Reuveni was put on administrative leave on April 5 , 2025 , and his
employment was
ultimately terminated on April11 , 2025.1
In this letter Mr. Reuveni exercises his rights to make disclosures to Congress , the DOJ
OIG, and the OSC pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 2302 and 5 U.S.C. § 1213. Mr. Reuveni's disclosures
detail violations of law, rules or regulations, and the abuse of authority by DOJ and White House
personnel, as wellas the creation of substantial and specific health and safety threats to noncitizens .
These high-level governmental personnel knowingly and willfully defied court orders , directed
their subordinate attorneys to make misrepresentations to courts , and engaged in a scheme to
withhold relevant information from the court to advance the Administration's priority ofdeporting
noncitizens.
Since April 5 , 2025, it has been widely reported that, according to DOJ sources , Mr.
Reuveni was put on administrative leave by DOJ for allegations of failure to "follow a directive "
from his superiors , failure to
“zealously advocate" on behalf of the United States, and for arguing
"against Homeland Security and [ the ] State Department” when he truthfully represented to the
court that Mr. Abrego Garcia's removal was in error.² These statements by Attorney General
Pamela Bondi and her deputy, Todd Blanche, are false and misleading . Indeed , it has since been
reported that prior to the April 4 hearing, Senior Counselor to the Secretary of Homeland Security
and Trump appointee James Percival conceded that Mr. Abrego Garcia's removal "was an
administrative error [ … ] (Not that we should say publicly. ). " ³
Nevertheless, White House officials have publicly disparaged Mr. Reuveni to justify their
refusal to comply with the Constitution and with court orders.4 White House Deputy Chief ofStaff
Stephen Miller falsely stated , "The only mistake that was made is a lawyer put an incorrect line in
Through counsel Gilbert Employment Law and Government Accountability Project, Mr. Reuveni has filed an
appeal alleging that his no
- notice termination violated the Civil Service Reform Act and the Whistleblower
Protection Act with the Merit Systems Protection Board ( MSPB).
² Glenn Thrush ,
“Justice Dept. Accuses Top Immigration Lawyer of Failing to Follow Orders ," New York Times,
April 5, 2025, https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/05/us/politics/justice-dept-immigration-lawyer-leave.html; Evan
Perez , "Justice Department Fires Immigration Lawyer Who Argued Case of Mistakenly Deported Man,
” CNN , April
15 , 2025 , https://www.cnn.com/2025/04/15/politics/doj-fires-immigration-lawyer-who-argued-abrego-garcia-case-
source-
says; Constitutional Accountability Center,
“Bondi's Firing of DOJ Lawyer for Lack of ‘Zealous Advocacy '
in Deportation Case Raises Concerns ,
” May 1 , 2025 , https://www.theusconstitution.org/news/bondis-firing-of-doj-
lawyer-for-lack-
-zealous -advocacy-in-deportation- case- raises-concerns/ .
3 Hamed Aleaziz and Alan Feuer ,
“How Trump Officials Debated Handling ofthe Abrego Garcia Case: 'Keep Him
Where He Is ', " New York Times , May 21 , 2025 , https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/21/us/politics/trump-abrego-
garcia-el -salvador-deportation.html .
4Alan Feuer and Glenn Thrush,
“Judges in Deportation Cases Face Evasion and Delay from Trump Administration ,
”
New York Times, June 3 , 2025, https://www.nytimes.com/2025/06/03/us/politics/judges-trump-deportations-
immigration.html ; Perez,
“Justice Department Fires”; Fox News ,
“Stephen Miller Doubles Down on Deportation of
Alleged Gang Member: 'Not Mistakenly Sent' | Fox News Video,
” April 14 , 2025,
https://www.foxnews.com/video/6371474279112 ; Dareh Gregorian , Katherine Doyle and Lawrence Hurley, "El
Salvador's president says he won't return mistakenly deported man to the U.S.,
” NBC News, April 14, 2025,
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/trump-administration/president-el-salvador-wont-return-deported-man-kilmar-
abrego -garcia-rcna201136.
of
1
Page 2of
27a legal filing, ” and labeled Mr. Reuveni a “saboteur , a Democrat .”5 Referring to Mr. Reuveni ,
President Trump stated,
"Well, the lawyer that said it was a mistake was here a long time, was not
appointed by us—should not have said that , should not have said that .
"
What has not been reported to date are Mr. Reuveni's attempts over the course of three
weeks and affecting three separate cases to secure the government's compliance with court orders ,
and his resistance to the internal efforts of DOJ and White House leadership to defy them through
lack of candor, deliberate delay, and disinformation . Discouraging clients from engaging in illegal
conduct is an important part of the role of a lawyer. ” Mr. Reuveni tried to do so and was thwarted ,
threatened, fired, and publicly disparaged for both doing his job and telling the truth to the court.
Because his clients engaged in unlawful activity, abused their authority , created substantial and
specific threat to health and safety , and because the pattern of this conduct continues to this day ,
8
5 Perez,
"Justice Department Fires"
; Fox News,
" Stephen Miller Doubles Down,
" 2:46; Gregorian, Doyle and
Hurley,
"El Salvador's president says.
"
6 Fritz Farrow, “Trump Says 'I Could' Get Abrego Garcia Back from El Salvador, ” ABC News, April 29, 2025,
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-abrego-garcia-back-el-salvador/story?id=121298276 .
7 D.C. R. Prof'l Conduct § 3.3 ; see also , In re Public Defender Service, 831 A.2d 890 , 901 (D.C. 2003 )
"
(
... discouraging clients from illegal conduct is a regular occurrence in an attorney's practice.
practice of a decent lawyer is telling would-be clients that they are damned fools and should stop.
Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co., 697 F.2d 198, 201-02 (7th Cir. 1983) (attributed to Elihu Root).
"
necessary, to abandon illegal conduct or plans .
Memorandum and Opinion at p . 1 , https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69741724/81/jgg-v-trump/ ( “the court
sufficient for the Court to conclude that probable cause exists to find the Government in criminal contempt.”) ;
‘[A]bout half ofthe
' McCandless v .
); see also , id . ,
( noting that when a “ client misguidedly contemplates or proposes” illegal action , the “lawyer is then obliged , in the
interests of justice and the client's own long -term best interests , to urge the client, as forcefully and emphatically as
"
).
8 Feuer and Thrush, “Judges in Deportation Cases Face Evasion and Delay From Trump Administration ,” (noting
pattern of"obfuscations and delays " to courts in the context of legal challenges to deportation plans so significant
that multiple judges in the cases referenced herein have considered or initiated criminal contempt proceedings
against the Trump administration). See also J.G.G. v. Trump, 1 :25-
cv
-00766 , (D.D.C. Apr 16 , 2025) ECF No. 81,
ultimately determines that the Government's actions on that day demonstrate a willful disregard for its Order,
J.G.G, (D.D.C. June 04, 2025) ECF No. 148 , Memorandum Opinion at p. 3 ,
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69741724/jgg-v-trump/?page=2#entry-148 (
"This Court , at a swiftly
convened hearing on March 15 , ordered the Government not to relinquish custody of the men , but that mandate was
ignored. Such defiance is currently the subject of the Court's contempt inquiry.
"
); D.V.D. v. U.S. Department of
Homeland Security, 1 :25-
- 10676, (D. Mass. May 21 , 2025 ) ECF No. 119 , Order on Remedy for Violation of
Preliminary Injunction at p. 1 , https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69775896/dvd-v-us-department-of-homeland-
Government's actions on that day demonstrate a willful disregard for its Order, sufficient for the Court to conclude
cv
security/ #entry-119 ( “ [t]he Court found that Defendants violated the Court's Preliminary Injunction.”) ; D.V.D. , (D.
Mass . May 26 , 2025 ) ECF No. 135, Order on Motion for Reconsideration at p . 7,
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69775896/135/dvd-v-us-department-of-homeland-security/ (
"The court
reserved ruling on whether such a violation warranted a finding of contempt.
"
); Abrego Garcia v . Noem , 8 :25 - cv-
00951 , (D. Md. Apr 16, 2025 ) ECF No. 86 at p. 69 , https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69777799/86/1/abrego-
garcia-
v
-noem/ (“I'm not going to issue a show cause today for contempt findings , but I do find it well within my
authority to proceed with expedited discovery specifically to determine whether you are abiding by the court order,
my court orders, whether you intend to abide by the court orders.
"
) , (“ the Court ultimately determines that the
that probable cause exists to find the Government in criminal contempt .
"
) ; J.G.G, (D.D.C. June 04 , 2025 ) ECF No.
148 , Memorandum Opinion at p . 3 , https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69741724/jgg-v-trump/?page=2#entry-
148 (
"This Court, at a swiftly convened hearing on March 15, ordered the Government not to relinquish custody of
the men, but that mandate was ignored . Such defiance is currently the subject ofthe Court's contempt inquiry.
"
);
Page 3 of27Mr. Reuveni is exercising his rights under 5 U.S.C. § 2302 and 5 U.S.C. § 1213 to report
wrongdoing.⁹
Since his unlawful termination, six members ofCongress have written to Attorney General
has created for attorneys “
who may be forced to choose between their jobs and their oath of candor
to the courts,
" and calling for Mr. Reuveni's reinstatement. 10 We thank these members for their
the DOJ Inspector General and the U.S. Office of Special Counsel to investigate the disclosures
support ofMr. Reuveni , and urge all members of Congress committed to the rule of law along with
presented in this letter
.
Immigration Litigation (OIL), District Court Section (DCS) in 2010 as a trial attorney and was
promoted multiple times under both Republican and Democratic administrations.11
Immigration Litigation responsible for all of OIL's immigration litigation arising in U.S. district
courts nationwide, overseeing over one hundred attorneys handling hundreds of cases . His
I. Before his unlawful removal from federal service on April 11 , 2025 , Mr. Reuveni had an
Most recently, Mr. Reuveni served as the Acting Deputy Director for the Office of
exemplary, nearly 15 - year legal career at DOJ. Mr. Reuveni began his career at the Office of
Bondi and Deputy Attorney General Blanche decrying the “Hobbesian choice ” DOJ leadership
Erez Reuveni: Nonpartisan Zealous Advocate with Distinguished Service at DOJ
D.V.D. , (D. Mass . May 21 , 2025 ) ECF No. 119 , Order on Remedy for Violation of Preliminary Injunction at p . 1 ,
courtlistener.com/docket/69775896/dvd-v-us-department-of-homeland-security/#entry-119 (
“
[t]he Court found that
Defendants violated the Court's Preliminary Injunction . ”) ; D.V.D. , (D. Mass . May 26, 2025 ) ECF No. 135 , Order on
Motion for Reconsideration at p . 7 , courtlistener.com/docket/69775896/135/dvd-v-us-department-of-homeland-
security/ (
"
The court reserved ruling on whether such a violation warranted a finding of contempt.
"
) ; Abrego
Garcia, (D. Md. Apr 16 , 2025) ECF No. 86 at p . 69 , courtlistener.com/docket/69777799/86/1/abrego-garcia-v-
noem/ (
“I'm not going to issue a show cause today for contempt findings , but I do find it well within my authority to
proceed with expedited discovery specifically to determine whether you are abiding by the court order , my court
orders, whether you intend to abide by the court orders.
"
9 As an attorney subject to rules ofprofessional conduct, Mr. Reuveni has consulted extensively with ethics counsel ,
Kathleen Clark and Richard Zitrin , regarding the exercise ofhis whistleblower rights . Mr. Reuveni's disclosures
).
contained herein are permitted under the DC Bar Rules of Professional Conduct 1.6 and California Rules of
Professional Conduct 8.5 .
10 Rep . Daniel Goldman et al. , Letter to Attorney General Bondi and Deputy Attorney General Blanche , April 16 ,
2025 , https://goldman.house.gov/sites/evo-subsites/goldman.house.gov/files/evo-media-document/4.16.25_letter-
from- rep -goldman%2C - et- al. %2C -to- ag-bondi-%26 -dag-blanche.pdf .
11
Mr. Reuveni was promoted to Senior Litigation Counsel in 2015, to Assistant Director of OIL - DCS in 2017, and
has twice served as Acting Deputy Director for OIL , responsible for all of OIL's immigration litigation in U.S.
district courts nationwide . From December 2023 to October 2024 , Mr. Reuveni first served as counsel and then
senior counsel to Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Brian Boynton and Deputy Assistant Attorney
General Chris Tenorio . Mr. Reuveni first served as Acting Deputy Director of OIL, District Court Section from
November to December 2024. OIL was then restructured , and the District Court Section was merged with the OIL
Appellate Section into OIL, General Litigation and Appeals. After this merger , Mr. Reuveni was counsel to Acting
Assistant Attorney General Yaakov Roth, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Brett Shumate, and Deputy
Assistant Attorney General Drew Ensign for approximately two months until Mr. Reuveni was again promoted and
began a role as Acting Deputy Director of OIL, General Litigation and Appeals beginning March 21 , 2025.
4 of27
Pagesupervisory responsibilities included oversight of the government's defense against many
significant legal challenges to multiple Executive Orders signed by President Trump and defending
multiple immigration policy initiatives on behalf ofthe Departments of Homeland Security (DHS),
State (DOS), Defense (DOD), Labor (DOL) and Health and Human Services (HHS). Mr. Reuveni
received notice of his promotion to that role on March 14, 2025, effective Friday, March 21, and
in the following week alone oversaw and defended the government's position in at least seven
cases involvingmotions for temporary restraining orders or preliminary injunctions seeking court
orders enjoining Trump Administration policies nationwide, including multiple emergency
appeals to various courts of appeal.
Prior to Mr. Reuveni's termination following his candid and truthful representations to the
court in the Abrego Garcia case, Department of Justice leadership under the Trump administration
had consistently lauded Mr. Reuveni's work. For example, in a March 21, 2025 email announcing
Mr. Reuveni's recent promotion, Deputy Assistant Attorney General Drew Ensign remarked that
Mr. Reuveni “is a top notched [sic] litigator who has taken on some of OIL's most challenging
cases over the past nearly 15 years,
" including as “Assistant Director for over 7 years,
" and
“multiple stints as counsel in the Civil Division front office,
" having “led and litigated complex
cases protecting our immigration authorities, developed sanctuary city affirmative cases, and
worked closely with our many excellent attorneys handling district court litigation.
” " 12
Additionally, Mr. Reuveni's most recent performance review under the prior Trump
administration was stellar. Then-Deputy Director Colin Kisor wrote that “Assistant Director Erez
Reuveni continues to be one of OIL-DCS's [OIL District Court Section] premier litigators and
supervisors. He is an outstanding attorney, legal writer, and oral advocate. He continues to handle
some ofthe section's most difficult and highest profile cases.
13 Mr. Kisor further noted that "Mr.
Reuveni routinely received accolades for his efforts from senior personnel within DOJ and the
agencies he advocates for,
" is an “indispensable asset to OIL-DCS, the Civil Division, DOJ, and
the many client agencies he works closely with,
” and “has truly earned an excellent rating for this
rating period.
" 14
Indeed, Mr. Reuveni has received an “ excellent rating" for everyyear he has worked atthe
Department, since 2010. On top ofthat, he is a recipient of nine Civil Division awards, including
three during the prior Trump Administration for helping lead the COVID- 19 Immigration
Litigation Response Team in 2020, leading district court litigation on behalf ofthe Sanctuary Cities
Litigation Team in 2019, and leading defense of the Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist
Entry Executive Order in 2017.15
12ExhibitA.
13 On file with GovernmentAccountability Project.
14 On file with Government Accountability Project.
15 Exhibits B-D .
Page 5 of27For years, Mr. Reuveni oversaw the defense of immigration priorities, regardless of
political party. During the first Trump Administration Mr. Reuveni led the defense of the
Administration's initiatives, including the Executive Orders and proclamation barring entry of
certain nationalities to the United States; multiple rules barring access to asylum to migrants at the
southern border, including the entry, transit, and criminal asylum bars; the Migrant Protection
Protocols; and the defense of the Expedited Removal statute against constitutional challenges. Mr.
Reuveni also led an affirmative suit challenging the state of California's laws alleged to interfere
with federal immigration enforcement efforts. During the Biden Administration, Mr. Reuveni
defended multiple immigration matters, including several rules barring access to asylum to those
arriving on the southern border. 16 Earlier in his career, he defended multiple Obama-era labor and
employment regulations as well as detention and removal policies and procedures. 17 Before his
abrupt termination, Mr. Reuveni oversaw multiple high-profile Trump Administration
immigration initiatives.
18
In short, Mr. Reuveni has been a tireless advocate on behalf of the interests of the United
States for years, with a stellar record of advocating successfully on behalf of multiple Presidential
administrations, both Republican and Democratic . To suggest Mr. Reuveni is anything but a
zealous advocate for the United States who takes his oath to uphold the Constitution seriously is
both false and outrageous.
16 Initiatives Mr. Reuveni defended underthe Biden administration included: Secure the Border and Circumvention
ofLawful Pathways rules, Las Americas ImmigrantAdvocacy Center v. DHS, 24- cv- 1702 (D.D.C. 2024); M.A. v.
Mayorkas, 23- cv- 1843 (D.D.C. 2023), as well as ICE's immigration enforcement priorities, Texas v. United States,
21-cv-16 (S.D. Tex. 2022), the Asylum Officer Rule, Arizona v. Garland, 22-cv- 1130 (W.D. La. 2024); Texasv.
Mayorkas, 22-cv-94 (N.D. Tex . 2024), the Central American Minors program, Texas v . Trump, 22-cv-780 (N.D. Tex.
2025), the CHNV parole program, Texas v. DHS, 23- cv- 7 (S.D. Tex. 2024), the termination of the Migrant
Protection Protocols, Texas v. Biden, 21-cv-67 (N.D. Tex. 2025), and the Keeping Families Together initiative, Texas
v. DHS, 24-cv-306 (E.D. Tex. 2024), among many others.
17 Underthe Obama Administration, Mr. Reuveni defended, for example: Washington All. ofTech. Workers v. DHS,
650 F.App'x 13 (D.C. Cir. 2016); G.H. Daniels III & Assocs., Inc. v . Perez, 626 F. App'x 205 (10thCir. 2015);
Bayou Lawn & Landscape Servs. v. Sec'y, U.S. Dept ofLabor, 621 F. App'x 620, 621 (11th Cir. 2015); Save Jobs
USA v. DHS, 210 F. Supp. 3d 1 (D.D.C. 2016), detention and removal policies and expedited removal procedures,
Castro v. DHS, 835 F.3d 422 (3d Cir. 2016), cert denied 137 S. Ct. 1581 (2017), refugee settlementprocedures,
Bilbro v. Haley, 229 F. Supp. 3d 397 (D.S.C. 2017). Mr. Reuveni also secured an appellate win in a Ninth Circuit
case rejecting an entitlement to counsel for minors in removal proceedings in a nation-wide class action. JEFMv.
Holder, 837 F.3d 1026 (9th Cir. 2016).
18 These initiatives have included: President Trump's invocation of the Alien Enemies Act the weekend of March 15,
J.G.G. v. Trump , 25- cv-766 (D.D.C. 2025); the DHS's policies concerning removal ofnoncitizens to third countries,
D.V.D. v. U.S. Dept. ofHomeland Security, 25-cv-10676 (D. Mass. 2025); DHS's revocation of legal status programs
for hundreds ofthousands of migrants from countries like Ukraine, Venezuela, and Haiti, National TPSAlliance v.
Noem, 25-cv-01766 (N.D. Cal. 2025); Doe v. Noem, 25-cv- 10495 (D. Mass. 2025); the expansion of expedited
removal deportation procedures to the entire United Staes, Make the Road New Yorkv. Huffman, 25-cv-190 (D.D.C.
2025); Trump's declaration of an “ invasion " at the southern border and Proclamation directing DHS to haltall
asylum processing for individuals subject to the Proclamation, Refugee andImmigrant Centerfor Education and
Legal Services v. Noem, 25-cv-306 (D.D.C. 2025); lawsuits challenging the so-called “sanctuary policies” ofIllinois
and New York , among others , United States v. Illinois, 25- cv- 1285 (N.D. III. 2025), United States v. New York , 25-
cv-205 (N.D. N.Y.2025); and most recently a lawsuit challenging the wrongful removal of an Salvadoran national to
his home country despite that order not being legally executable. Abrego Garcia v . Noem, 25-cv-951 (D. Md. 2025).
Page 6 of27II. March 14, 2025 : DOJ Leadership Expressed Intent to Ignore Court Orders to
Effectuate Removal Flights Under the Alien Enemies Act
On Friday March 14 , 2025, Mr. Reuveni received notice ofhis promotion toActing Deputy
Director ofthe Office of Immigration Litigation. That same day, following news reports that the
President intended to sign a presidential proclamation invoking the Alien Enemies Act (AEA), Mr.
Reuveni was summoned to a meeting by Deputy Assistant Attorney General (DAAG ) of OIL,
Drew Ensign. At the meeting were Principal Assistant Deputy Attorney General (PADAG ) Emil
Bove, Counselor to the Deputy Attorney General James McHenry, Associate Deputy Attorney
General (ADAG) Paul Perkins, DAAG Ensign, Acting Director for OIL and Mr. Reuveni's direct
supervisor, August Flentje, and other OIL attorneys.
At the meeting Bove indicated to those in attendance that the AEA proclamation would
soon be signed and that one or more planes containing individuals subject to the AEA would be
taking off over the weekend – meaning Saturday, March 15 and Sunday, March 16. Bove did not
provide further details and 19 Bove indicated
20 and stressed to all in attendance that the
planes needed to take off no matter what.
Bove then made a remark concerning the possibility that a court order would enjoin those
removals before they could be effectuated. Bove stated that DOJ would need to consider telling
the courts "fuck you” and ignore any such court order. Mr. Reuveni perceived that others in the
room looked stunned, and he observed awkward, nervous glances among people in the room.
Silence overtook the room. Mr. Reuveni and others were quickly ushered out of the room.
Notwithstanding Bove's directive, Mr. Reuveni left the meeting understanding that DOJ would
tell DHS to follow all court orders.21
Mr. Reuveni was stunned by Bove's statement because, to Mr. Reuveni's knowledge, no
one in DOJ leadership - in any Administration – had ever suggested the Department of Justice
-
could blatantly ignore court orders, especially with a "fuck you.
” Mr. Reuveni was in disbelief,
because, on the contrary, the Department of Justice consistently advises its clients of their
obligation to follow court orders, not to ignore them. Mr. Reuveni knew that it was absurd and
unlawful to do otherwise, a proposition that Mr. Reuveni felt even more certain of after a brief
conversation with his supervisor, August Flentje, shortly after the meeting.
19This clause is redacted because it is not clear that an exception to the lawyer's duty of confidentiality applies here.
20 This clause is redacted because it is not clear that an exception to the lawyer's duty of confidentiality applies here.
21 Mr. Reuveni left the meeting with this impressionbecause
This clause is redacted because it is not clear that an exception to the
lawyer's duty ofconfidentiality applies here.
Page 7 of27III. Between March 14, 2025, and His Unlawful Suspension on April 5, 2025, Mr. Reuveni
Refused to Obey an Illegal Order and Made Protected Whistleblower Disclosures
Mr. Reuveni's disbelief following the meeting with Bove is now a relic of a different time.
Over the next three weeks, Mr. Reuveni was involved in three separate cases involving the legality
of the Administration's immigration removal operations under its newly implemented priorities
during which time he directly witnessed and reported:
•
•
•
DOJ officials undermining the rule of law by ignoring court orders;
DOJ officials presenting “legal” arguments with no basis in law;
high-ranking DOJ and DHS officials misrepresenting facts presented before
courts; and
DOJ officials directing Mr. Reuveni to misrepresent facts in one of these cases in
violation of Mr.Reuveni's legal and ethical duties as an officer ofthe court.2 .
22
Mr. Reuveni's internal reporting and ultimately his refusal to obey this illegal order directly
resulted in his suspension and termination.
A. J.G.G. v. Trump: Flights departed the U.S. through invocation of the Alien
Enemies Act during issuance of injunction with government claiming oral
injunctions are not binding
At 1:12 a.m.2 23 on Saturday March 15, 2025, prior to publication of the Alien Enemies Act
Proclamation, the American Civil Liberties Union filed suit on behalf of five Venezuelan men
facing imminent deportation under the AEA and moved for a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO)
to prevent their removal. When Mr. Reuveni woke up that morning, he reviewed the plaintiffs'
motion and learned that the removals were allegedly to prisons in El Salvador, known for their
torture and human rights abuses.24 After learning from plaintiffs' counsel that at least one plaintiff
was reportedly already aboard a removal flight, Judge James Boasberg of the U.S. District Court
22 These incidents involved senior political leadership at DOJ and DHS including but not limited to: Counselorto the
DAG McHenry, ADAGPerkins, Counselor to the Attorney General HenryWhitaker, Senior Counselorto the
Secretary ofHomeland Security James Percival, and Acting General Counsel of DHS Joe Mazzara. McHenry ,
Perkins, Whitaker, Percival, and Mazzara were frequently listed together in communications, including in
communications from the White House, and as explained further below, appeared to hold decision making power
between DOJ and DHS .
23 All times listed are in Eastern Time.
24 President Bukele of El Salvador instituted a state of emergency in 2022 in response to gang violence that resulted
in high numbers of detentions and deaths in custody. Associated Press,
“At least 261 people have died in El
Salvador's prisons under anti-gang crackdown, rights group says,
" Associated Press, July 10, 2024,
https://apnews.com/article/bukele-el-salvador-gang-crackdown-prison-deaths-9d14cbb1ea35175d75d007f6faade61f .
Reports offormerly detained persons, families of detained persons, and autopsy reports indicate conditions of
torture.
“Executive Summary: One YearUnder State of Exception: A Permanent Measure ofRepression and Human
Rights Violations,
” Cristosal, 2023, https://cristosal.org/EN/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/English-Executive-
Summary-One-Year.pdf . See also U.S. State Dep't, 2023 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices: ElSalvador,
https://www.state.gov/reports/2023-country-reports-on-human-rights-practices/el-salvador/.
Page 8 of27for the District of Columbia entered an ex parte TRO prohibiting the government from removing
the five named plaintiffs and set a hearing for 4:00 p.m. , which the court later changed to 5:00
p.m., to hear argument on a broader TRO.
1. Deputy Assistant Attorney General Ensign willfully misled the court while
DHS and DOS ignored Mr. Reuveni's advice
Shortly after Judge Boasberg entered the initial TRO, Mr. Reuveni informed the District
Court via email at 10:18 a.m. that its order had been received and “disseminated to the relevant
executive branch agencies.
"25 At the 5:00 p.m. hearing later that day, DAAG Ensign represented
the government in court while Mr. Reuveni listened on the public line, emailing DHS and DOS
agency counsel periodically.
At this hearing, Judge Boasberg said that “the plaintiffs ... expected planes to be departing
within the last couple of hours,
” and asked Ensign “if any of the named plaintiffs are, in fact, or
any plane that has departed?" Ensign assured the court that none of the named plaintiffs would be
removed during the pendency of the TRO. When Judge Boasberg asked if that meant the plaintiffs
“are either not on the planes or that they will not be removed from the planes and will be brought
back once the planes land in El Salvador,
” Ensign asserted,
“I don't know the status ofthe planes.
Ifthere are removal flights, the five would not be on them.
” When Judge Boasberg asked whether
any deportations or removals were imminent, as “in the next 24 or 48 hours ,
” Ensign answered,
“I
don't know the answer to that question.
"26
Mr. Reuveni reasonably believes Ensign's statement to the court that he did not know
whether AEA removals would take place “in the next 24 or 48 hours" was false. Ensign had been
present in the previous day's meeting when Emil Bove stated clearly that one or more planes
containing individuals subject to the AEA would be taking off over the weekend no matter what.
Ensign then added,
"We can certainly investigate that and report that back to you.
"When
Judge Boasberg asked how soon he could get that information, Ensign said that the government
could "certainly include" the information in a document they were planning to file “tomorrow
night.
” The plaintiffs' lawyer stressed the urgency of the situation, noting his “understanding from
people on the ground, from different sources, ...
that planes are going right now taking
Venezuelans to El Salvador" ; that two flights "may have already taken off… during this hearing”;
...
and urged the"Court to issue a class TRO now to avoid any more harm.
"27
25J.G.G., (D.D.C. Apr 16, 2025) ECF No. 81, Memorandum & Opinion at p . 5,
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69741724/81/jgg-v-trump/ .
26J.G.G., (D.D.C. Mar 16, 2025) ECF No. 20, Transcript at pp. 4-5, 11,
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69741724/20/jgg-v-trump/ .
27 Id atpp.
11-13.
Page 9 of27At that point, Judge Boasberg adjourned the hearing until 6:00 p.m. to “let Mr. Ensign do
some digging.
” The court specified,
“Mr. Ensign, I will want to know, have planes, in fact --
is
deportation of people under the proclamation pursuant to the AEA in motion now and will it be
for the next 48 hours.
" Ensign responded,
"We can do that, Your Honor.
"28
The adjournment began at 5:22 p.m. Mr. Reuveni was not included in Ensign's
conversation with DHS , DOS, or DOJ leadership during this period.
However , prior to 5:24 p.m., DOJ attorneys, including Ensign and Mr. Reuveni, received
an email from plaintiffs ' attorney citing public reporting of flight information and stating that they
had reason to believe that people were on planes for imminent deportation. According to public
reports and various websites that track the whereabouts ofairplanes in real -time, at least two planes
took off from Texas after the start of the hearing: the first at 5:26 p.m. and the second at 5:45 p.m.
en route to what online sources speculated was a final destination of El Salvador.² 29
Yet, at 6:00 p.m., following the 38-minute adjournment, DAAG Ensign provided Judge
Boasberg with no information regarding flight departures. Specifically, Ensign told the court,
“I
don't have many details to share,
” explaining that his “clients” said that the “ operational details ...
raised potential national security issues, particularly ones if discussed with a public line.
” When
Ensign said that his clients “raised that we may be able to provide Your Honor additional details
in an in camera hearing,
” Judge Boasberg quickly arranged “to disconnect the public [phone] line”
and start an in camera proceeding. But even after the court accommodated the request for an in
camera proceeding, Ensign failed to provide information about the flights. He explained that “we
would have to sort out what can still be provided in camera. They suggested that as a way to
potentially provide some details, but I do not personally have those right now.
" Once it became
clear that Ensign would not provide information even in camera, the court ended the in camera
proceeding and reconnected the public line.
28Id atpp. 13-14.
29Josh Gerstein, Senior Legal Affairs Reporter, POLITICO, (@joshgerstein.bsky.social),
“ Looks like one El
Salvador-bound flight took off during a break in the hearing,
" Bluesky, March 15, 2025,
https://bsky.app/profile/joshgerstein.bsky.social/post/31kh4yqxaek2d. and FlightAware,
“Flight GXA6145 History,
March 15, 2025,
" https://www.flightaware.com/live/flight/GXA6145/history/20250315/1930Z/KHRL/MHPR
(indicatingthat the plane took off at 4:45 p.m. CT). Also see later confirmation offlight departures, Michael
Kunzelman and Regina Garcia Cano,
“A Timeline of the Legal Wrangling and Deportation Flights After Trump
Involvedthe Alien Enemies Act,
” AP News, March 21, 2025, https://apnews.com/article/trump-deportation-courts-
aclu-venezuelan-gang- timeline-43e1deafd66fc1ed4e934ad108ead529; Reuters,
"Flight Data Shows Timeline of
VenezuelanDeportation Operation,
" Reuters, March 17, 2025, https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/flight-data-
shows-timeline-venezuelan-deportation-operation-2025-03-17/.
Page 10 of27Plaintiffs' counsel told the court,
"We understand that two flights went to El Salvador this
afternoon,
" and that a third flight was "scheduled for 6:23 , so only in a matter of minutes.
" After
several minutes of legal argument, the court found that “class certification is warranted.
"30
When a court issues an injunction against the federal government, the normal practice is
for Justice Department lawyers to work with agency counsel in developing guidance explaining
what the government must do to comply with the injunction. The relevant agencies then
disseminate that guidance to their components. For example, when a court order impacts DHS
immigration removal operations , in normal practice DOJ and DHS lawyers create guidance that
DHS would then, once approved, disseminate to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)
Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO), and other relevant components. Because Mr.
Reuveni's name was on the court papers the government filed in the three cases at issue, and
because of his role as Acting Deputy Director for OIL, he had a responsibility to confirm that the
government was abiding by the court orders in those cases.
With this in mind, at 6:14 p.m., as the hearing continued, Mr. Reuveni, again listening on
the public line, emailed attorneys with the DHS Office of General Counsel, ICE Office ofthe
Principal Legal Advisor (OPLA), and the DOS Office of Legal Advisor informing them along with
other DOJ attorneys that the “Judge is certifying a nationwide class as we speak. It is likely a class-
wide tro is imminent.
” At 6:44 p.m. , Mr. Reuveni sent a follow-up email: "The judge is presently
issuing a class-wide TRO . Can folks confirm for us if at the moment any individuals subject to the
AEA are being staged for removal, or are presently in the air as part ofremoval (but not yet having
landed and disembarked)?"
At 6:44 p.m., Mr. Reuveni texted his supervisor Mr. Flentje referencing Bove's March 14,
2025, comment that it might become necessary to tell a court "fuck you.
" Mr. Flentje
acknowledged Bove's comment with a joke referencing the possibility that either he or Mr.
Reuveni could be fired, impliedly for reporting up their chain of command concerns that a court
order may have been violated.
At 6:46 p.m., Mr. Reuveni emailed DHS the substance of Judge Boasberg's oral order
concerning class certification and a TRO: “The class is ‘all noncitizens in US custody subjectto
the AEA' a minute order with more specifics will issue. Please confirm receipt of this email and
let us know ASAP on the questions below concerning removals not yet effectuated, including those
involvingfolks in the air.
” At 6:48 p.m. Mr. Reuveni sent another email: "Sorry for all the emails.
Last email: the judge specifically ordered us to not remove anyone in the class, and to return
anyone in the air.
”
30J.G.G., (D.D.C. Mar 16, 2025) ECF No. 20, Transcript at pp. 15-18, 23,
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69741724/jgg-v-trump/#entry-20 .
Page 11 of27After additional legal argument, Judge Boasberg stated that “a TRO is appropriate for the
class members,
"prohibiting removal of class members, withthe class consisting of"all noncitizens
in U.S. custody who are subject to the proclamation of March 15, 2025, and its implementation.
”
Judge Boasberg explained that the court was “required to act immediately” and could not
"wait any longer,
” particularly in light of “the plaintiffs' information, unrebutted by the
government, that flights are actively departing and plan to depart,
" instructing Ensign:
[Y]ou shall inform your clients of this immediately, and that any plane containing
these folks that is going to take off or is in the air needs to be returned to the United
States, but those people need to be returned to the United States. However that's
accomplished, whether turning around a plane or not embarking anyone on the
plane or those people covered by this on the plane, I leave to you. But this is
something that you need to make sure is complied with immediately.31
At 7:04 p.m., Mr. Reuveni emailed DHS and DOS as follows:
As we await the written order, clarifying our understanding of the injunction as
clarified at the end. No one subject to AEA in our custody can be removed. And
anyone in the air should be returned, unless they have a title 8 final order. Please
confirm receipt and let us know what if anything is happening. Thank you.
DHS and DOS attorneys did not respond.
Mr. Reuveni followed up with DHS at 7:18 p.m. requesting confirmation that no one
without a final order of removal under Title 8 would be removed from the planes as they landed,
including one scheduled to land at 7:20 p.m., noting that “We need to address this asap to avoid
contempt.
"Mr. Reuveni again received no response.
At 7:26 p.m., the court issued a minute order memorializing its TRO.
At 7:27 p.m., Mr. Reuveni sent another email to DHS and DOS with a copy of the minute
order.
At 7:31 p.m. , Ensign emailed James Percival, Senior Counselor to the Secretary of
Homeland Security, and Joseph Mazzara, Acting General Counsel for the Department of
Homeland Security, informing them of the injunction, and two minutes later emailed DOS counsel.
Both ofthese emails, on which Mr. Reuveni and Flentje were copied, informed the recipients of
both the oral and written injunctions, informed the agency counsel that their clients were required
31Id. atpp.
42-43. While there is no time stamp for Judge Boasberg's statements on the transcript, Mr. Reuveni's
records indicate this statement occurred at approximately 6:47 p.m.
Page 12 of27to not remove anyone within the class definition, and reflected that Ensign understood the judge
to be requiring that DHS not deplane any planes that had departed U.S. airspace. Mr.Reuveni was
not copied on any response.
At 10:13 p.m., after he and Mr. Flentje had exchanged numerous emails and he had no
information about any DHS compliance, Mr. Reuveni again emailed DHS to ask about whether
guidance had been disseminated with direction for DHS to turn any planes around ifnotyet landed
or to not deplane the people on board if already landed.
Shortly thereafter, DHS responded via email that they were holding issuance of guidance
pending a decision from the Attorney General.
2. Emil Bove advised the Department of Homeland Security that it may take
actions that violate the court's injunction because the injunction was not
yet issued in writing
For the next few hours on the night of March 15 , Mr. Reuveni exchanged emails with
Flentje and engaged in multiple phone calls with Ensign. He was concerned about two things: 1 )
that deplaning any passengers would violate the court's orders, and 2) the need to notify the court
of the government's compliance with those orders, or its interpretation of the orders. Sometime
around midnight, Ensign informed Mr. Reuveni that DOJ would be filing a notice with the court,
signed by Bove,explaining its interpretation of the court order, including that no violation of the
court order had occurred because the two planes left U.S. airspace before the court's written minute
order. Ensign directed Mr. Reuveni to prepare Bove's notice of appearance. While Mr. Reuveni
disagreed with the interpretation that there was no violation of a court order, the fact that Bove, a
senior DOJ official, was willing to enter an appearance in the case and make this representation to
the court somewhat lessened his concerns because he believed he and his staff would not be put in
the untenable position ofdefending this argument.
That quickly changed. On Sunday, March 16, 2025 , at 12:23 a.m. Ensign informed Mr.
Reuveni by phone that Bove would no longer be filing either a notice of appearance or a notice to
the court explaining the government's interpretation of the court's orders. Thereafter, Mr. Reuveni
and Flentje exchanged several more emails. Mr. Reuveni anticipated that the government would
be held in contempt of court for deplaning those on the flight and communicated his belief that a
notice to the court was necessary. At 12:33 a.m. , Ensign telephoned Mr. Reuveni informing him
that DOJ leadership did not appear to be in a hurry to file any such notice. Mr. Reuveni responded
that the government would likely face a show cause motion seeking an explanation as to why the
government should not be held in contempt of court.
That same morning at 8:07 a.m., Mr. Reuveni emailed DHS and DOS asking for
confirmation of their compliance with Judge Boasberg's oral and written orders, specifically
asking for the status of the individuals on each of the previous day's three flights. Mr. Reuveni's
Page 13 of27email included a reminder that to comply with the injunction, no one subject to AEA removal
should have been deplaned and anyone who had been deplaned needed to be returned to the United
States. Mr. Reuveni also asked whether conversations on these issues were happening at a higher
level of leadership between and among DOJ, DHS , and DOS. Mr. Reuveni received no response.
Given the absence of any email or notice from the agencies or DOJ leadership at that point ,
Mr. Reuveni's concerns from the prior night that DHS had been directed to violate the court orders
began to escalate. Early in the morning of Sunday March 16 , President Bukele of El Salvador
posted a comment on social media stating “Oopsie … Too late ,
” in reference to Judge Boasberg's
order, and Secretary of State Rubio re-posted the comment soon after .32 Soon after Bukele's initial
comment, Bukele posted a video of men being escorted from planes into the Terrorism
Confinement Center ("CECOT”
) prison.33
As the day continued, Mr. Reuveni's emails asking for confirmation of the status of the
removal flights remained unanswered. Mr. Reuveni reported his concerns to August Flentje that
based on public reporting, social media posts of the Secretary of State and the President of El
Salvador, and the failure of DHS to answer any of Mr. Reuveni's questions concerning the three
flights that had taken off the previous day, it appeared the government had violated the court's
order and removed individuals to El Salvador.
Eventually, agency counsel for DHS informed Mr. Reuveni by telephone that DOJ
leadership had advised DHS to deplane the flights in El Salvador and directed Mr. Reuveni to
consult DOJ leadership if he had any questions . Through the course of the events on March 16 , it
became clear to Mr. Reuveni that DHS and DOS were receiving contrary directions from someone
else to take actions in violation of court orders. By 2:00 p.m. , the identity ofthat individual became
32 Nayib Bukele (@nayibbukele ) ,
https://x.com/nayibbukele/status/1901238762614517965.
According to human rights groups like Cristosal , prison officials at CECOT have reportedly beaten, tortured, and
“Oopsie... Too Late,
”
X, March 16, 2025, 6:46 a.m. ,
denied prisoners access to food , water , clothing, and healthcare, allegedly causing at least 368 deaths . William
Brangham , Ian Couzens, Shrai Popat,
“The Conditions Inside the Infamous El Salvador Prison where Deported
Migrants are Held ,
” PBS, April 8 , 2025, https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/the-conditions-inside-the-infamous-el-
salvador -prison-where -deported-migrants-are - held . CECOT is described as “
a judicial black hole ": the prison exists
under a state of exception suspending constitutional rights and prisoners are detained incommunicado . Brangham,
"Conditions Inside.
" (" We have documented systematic physical beatings , torture, intentional denial of access to
food, water, clothing , health care . And the combination of both the physical abuse and the denial of basic needs has
led to the death of at least 368 people, according to our investigations... The CECOT prison has become sort of the
public face ofPresident Bukele's security strategy , which is understood as a state of exception... families and lawyers
do not have access to the prisoners. They're entirely cut off ... They're in a judicial black hole.
" "
The 15,000 prisoners are meant to be held “permanent[ ly ] ,
” and information from CECOT is tightly controlled by
the Salvadoran government . Thomas Graham,
“ The El Salvador Mega - Prison at the Dark Heart of Trump
Immigration Crackdown,
” The Guardian , April 30, 2025 , https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/apr/30/el-
salvador -cecot-mega-prison-trump ( “ [ CECOT ] is meant for permanent exile, permanent punishment '
... This tight
control on information coming out ofCecot allows authorities to shape its image.
"
)
33
)
Page 14 of27clear. In an email from Acting Assistant Attorney General (AAG) Yaakov Roth to Ensign, Flentje,
and Mr. Reuveni, Roth explained that Bove had advised DHS that under the court order it was
permissible to deplane individuals on the flights that departed U.S. airspace before the minute
order had issued on the docket.
That afternoon, the Department of Justice filed a Notice indicating that defendants "were
promptly notified of the court's temporary restraining order issued in the morning and the 7:26
PM EDT minute order that temporarily enjoined any removals pursuant to the Presidential
Proclamation.
” The Notice also asserted that “some gang members subject to removal under the
Proclamation had already been removed from United States territory under the Proclamation
before the issuance of this court's second [written] order.
" ³4
By day's end, multiple media reports and postings from senior government officials in both
the United States and El Salvador on social media confirmed that all individuals on two ofthe
three planes that had taken off March 15 had been detained in the CECOT prison in El Salvador.35
The next hearing in the case occurred on Monday, March 17, 2025. At some point prior to
the March 17 hearing, Ensign informed Mr. Reuveni that Ensign would not be handling the hearing
given concerns that the court would likely interrogate Ensign concerning the March 15 events.
3. Government refused to comply with court's reporting order
On March 17, the court held a hearing to determine whether the government complied with
its orders. The court issued a minute order demanding the government state “whether, and in what
form, it would provide answers to the court's questions regarding the particulars of the flights.
"³6
The order further stated that if “the Government takes the position that it will not provide that
information to the court under any circumstances, it must support such position, including with
classified authorities if necessary.
"37 Following this order, Flentje and Ensign told Mr. Reuveni
that leadership at DOJ were reporting “down the chain” that the government was not going to
answer the court's questions about anything that happened before 7:26 p.m. on March 15, and so
not to provide information about when the flights took off .38
34J.G.G, (D.D.C. Mar 16, 2025) ECF No. 19 , Notice to the Court at p . 1 , courtlistener.com/docket/69741724/19/jgg-
v-trump/.
35 Reports later indicated that 8 individuals who were on one ofthe three flights were returned to the United States.
Laura Romero,
“Venezuelans Deported Last WeekIncluded 8 Women Who Were Returned to US, Court Filings
Say,
" ABC News, March 24, 2025, https://abcnews.go.com/US/venezuelans-deported-week-included-8-women-
returned-us/story?id= 120111090.
36J.G.G., (D.D.C Mar 17, 2025), Minute Order, https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69741724/jgg-v-
trump/#minute-entry-424393366.
37Id.
38 At the March 17, 2025, hearing, the government did provide some responsive information. The attorney for the
"no planes took off from the United States after the written order came through [...] the two
governmentstated,
Page 15 of27B. D.V.D. v. DHS: Mr. Reuveni advised that injunction against third country
removals without torture screenings applied nationwide, but government
removed people in violation of the injunction nonetheless
The second case in which Mr. Reuveni exercised his right to make protected disclosures
unfolded over the weekend of March 28-30, 2025: D.V.D. v. U.S. Dept. ofHomeland Security , 25-
cv-10676 (D. Mass.). This case involved allegations that DHS had begun to remove individuals
with final orders of removal to third countries without first ascertaining whether such individuals
would be safe in those countries or potentially tortured, as required by the Convention Against
Torture (CAT ).
Onthe afternoon ofFriday March 28, 2025, around 2:30 p.m., Judge Brian Murphy, United
States District Court Judge in the District of Massachusetts, issued a nationwide TRO. The order
enjoined the government from removing the three named plaintiffs and “any individual subject to
a final order of removal from the United States to a third country, i.e., a country other than the
country designated for removal in immigration proceedings” without providing the individual and
their counsel "with written notice of the third country to where they may be removed" and "a
meaningful opportunity for that individual to submit an application for CAT protection to the
immigration court, and if any such application is filed, UNTIL that individual receives a final
agency decision on any such application.
" 939
1. Friday March 28: Senior Leadership took the position that the injunction
did not have nationwide applicability despite DOJ-OIL's instruction
DOJ leadership determined to seek an immediate appeal and stay of the order. The
argumentfor the emergency stay in the appellate brief was that the TRO, which by its terms applied
nationwide, was impermissible under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), and, in any
event, had to be limited to the named plaintiffs. Curiously, James McHenry, Counselor to the
Deputy Attorney General, directed through Ensign that afternoon that it was necessary to include
a peculiar footnote with no context stating,
“the operational effects of [the] order is [sic]
ambiguous.
"
Overthe course of the afternoon and evening of Friday, March 28, it became apparent why
McHenry had insisted on including this odd footnote. First, Mr. Reuveni learned that DHS was
directed by someone within the administration unknown to Mr. Reuveni not to issue guidance to
its officers concerning the fact of and terms of the injunction. This was despite the fact that DHS
planes that the plaintiffs cite in their filing, the timing of whether it was during the verbal order or the written order
does not have any material bearing based on the time lines that they have given,
” and agreed with the judge's
summary thatthe third flight carried detained persons,
“removable on grounds other than the proclamation and is,
therefore, irrelevant.
" J.G.G., (D.D.C. Mar 17, 2025) ECF No. 25, Transcript at pp. 6-7,
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69741724/25/jgg-v-trump/ .
39D.V.D., (D. Mass. Mar 28, 2025) ECF No. 34, Temporary Restraining Order at p. 2,
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69775896/34/dvd-v-us-department-of-homeland-security/ .
Page 16 of27agency counsel had drafted guidance concerning the injunction that noted the nationwide
applicability of the TRO, which Mr. Reuveni and others at OIL had agreed was appropriate. Mr.
Reuveni sent multiple emails to DHS counsel requesting updates regarding when the guidance
would be disseminated. Multiple line attorneys at DHS alerted Mr. Reuveni that the guidance was
never distributed. Ensign eventually told Mr. Reuveni that the Office of the Deputy Attorney
General (ODAG ) had directed a hold on dissemination ofthe guidance as they were reviewing it,
an unusual, but not unheard-of level ofreview.
On March 28, at 11:28 p.m., Mr. Reuveni sent an email to DHS counsel noting his
understanding that guidance had not yet been issued, as OIL had advised, and asking for
confirmation whether anyone subject to the injunction was being staged for removal. Mr. Reuveni
noted that the government's brief argued in requesting an emergency stay that the court order
applied broadly, beyond named plaintiffs. In response, at 12:34 a.m., Senior Counselor to the
Secretary of Homeland Security James Percival responded for DHS that "My take on these emails
is that DOJ leadership and DOJ litigators don't agree on the strategy. Please keep DHS out of it.
"
Mr. Reuveni responded at 12:36 a.m.,
"what is the position,
" to which Percival responded at 12:38
a.m.,
"Ask your leadership.
"
Withthis clear disconnect, it was evident to Mr. Reuveni that DHS had received direction
contrary to the guidance OIL had provided concerning the scope of the injunction. Mr. Reuveni
had attempted to contact Ensign and Flentje multiple times by phone between 10:40 p.m. and 12:04
a.m., and Roth via email, but no one answered.40
2. Night of March 28-Morning of March 29: White House directed Mr.
Reuveni to file brief asking for emergency stay with assurances of
understanding of nationwide applicability
Mr. Reuveni, unable to contact his chain of command, made the decision that the brief
requesting an emergency stay could not be filed given the lack of consensus that the injunction
applied nationwide, and notified DHS ofthe same at 12:42 a.m. on Saturday, March 29.
At 12:50 a.m., Mr. Reuveni received frantic emails from multiple senior DOJ and DHS
officials, ultimately including McHenry, Perkins, Counselor to the Attorney General Henry
Whitaker, and Percival, asking him to call them.
Mr. Reuveni first called ADAG Perkins, and he and McHenry were on the line. They asked
Mr. Reuveni why the brief had not been filed. Mr. Reuveni explained that, per his email , there
seemed to be a fundamental disconnect between the brief, which acknowledged nationwide
applicability of the injunction as the basis for seeking an emergency stay, and DHS's
40 Ensign was teleworking from Arizona as he often did and later told Mr. Reuveni that he missed the calls because
his phone was silenced.
Page 17 of27understanding that the injunction only applied to three named plaintiffs. On the call, Mr. Reuveni
perceived McHenry to be acting strangely, answering questions evasively and suggesting
additional odd language to add to the brief. Neither Perkins nor McHenry confirmed whether ICE
had even received the text of the injunction. The call ended when McHenry said that he and Perkins
needed to go make a call and would be back in touch.
Around 1:18 a.m., Whitaker and Percival emailed Mr. Reuveni asking him to call them.
Mr. Reuveni called Whitaker, who immediately patched in Percival. Similar to McHenry and
Perkins, Whitaker and Percival asked Mr. Reuveni why the brief had not been filed. They stated
that the White House wanted the brief filed by midnight. Mr. Reuveni stated that DHS seemed to
be saying that DOJ leadership was giving them guidance contrary to that provided by OIL. He
explained that the brief acknowledged the injunction applied nationwide, but DHS's position was
that it only applied to the three named plaintiffs.
Mr. Reuveni explained to Whitaker and Percivalthat ifthe brief were filed acknowledging
nationwide applicability of the injunction, that would be the official position of the United States.
Ifthere were also removal flights planned for that weekend, they would have to be consistent with
this injunction or risk contempt of court. If removals inconsistent with the injunction were
effectuated nonetheless, the government would have to withdraw or modify its brief and notifythe
court. Mr. Reuveni also shared his understanding that no guidance had been disseminated to DHS
regarding the position in the brief. Mr. Reuveni asked Whitaker and Percival if they agreed that
the injunction required nationwide applicability. Percival hurriedly responded,
“Yeah, sure,
” and
Whitaker said,
"Yeah, buddy.
"
Still concerned but relying on the assurances from Whitaker and Percival that they agreed
the injunction applied to more than the three named plaintiffs, Mr. Reuveni directed his staff to
file the brief. Later that day Mr. Reuveni learned with certainty that DHS had never disseminated
the injunction or guidance about its applicability within the agency.
3. Saturday March 29: Gag order instructed Mr. Reuveni to stop asking about
injunction compliance guidance
On the morning ofMarch 29, Mr. Reuveni learned that individuals were again being staged
in Texas by DHS, possibly for removal. Against that backdrop, Mr. Reuveni heard from DHS that
DHS was again working on disseminating guidance to ICE. Relieved, Mr. Reuveni briefly turned
to other matters.
However , by early afternoon it again became clear no guidance would be forthcoming; Mr.
Reuveni heard from agency counsel that no guidance had been disseminated and instead was stuck
somewhere within DHS. This meant no field officer at ICE involved in deportations had yet been
told how to conduct their operations consistent with the injunction and how to ensure that persons
Page 18 of27removed to third countries were given notice of their right to alert the government to claims of
torture in those countries. Mr. Reuveni called DHS agency counsel around 3:20 p.m. and
confirmed directly that no guidance had been issued. He immediately sent an email to DHS agency
counsel, in addition to Percival and Acting General Counsel for DHS, Mazzara, again requesting
an update on the status of guidance.
Separately, Mr. Reuveni contacted Ensign by phone, who informed him that the head of
ICE Enforcement and Removal Operations had been given “verbal” notice of the injunction, but
again, no written guidance had been disseminated to the agency. Sometime after this call, during
the mid-to-late afternoon, Ensign informed Mr. Reuveni by phone that it would be advisable to
stop sending emails with many recipients, including Percival, concerning the injunction-
compliance guidance.41
4. Sunday March 30: Mr. Reuveni reported a possible violation of injunction
On the morning of Sunday, March 30, despite Ensign's instruction to stop email
correspondence on the matter, Mr. Reuveni again emailed DHS to ask if any guidance on the
injunction had been disseminated. Mr. Reuveni continued to press on the matter pursuant to his
job responsibilities to ensure quick dissemination of guidance instructing injunction compliance,
his ethical duties, and his role as an officer of the court.
Thereafter, Mr. Reuveni spoke twice with Ensign on the phone between approximately
11:00 a.m. and noon, during which time Ensign told Mr. Reuveni that “leadership” had concluded
and directed that no injunction compliance guidance would be issued. Ensign also again told Mr.
Reuveni that he should no longer contact DHS asking about guidance.42 Mr. Reuveni informed
Ensign that plaintiffs' counsel had notified OIL attorneys that their class member clients were
being or had been prepared for removal, and without further information this appeared to be a
violation of the injunction. Ensign made comments to the effect that he agreed with Mr. Reuveni,
acknowledged the decisions were not ideal and would make it harder to win cases, and stated that
he was not a decision maker in these circumstances.
5. Monday March 31: Evidence demonstrated government violated injunction
Finally on Monday, March 31 , the Secretary of State issued a press release announcing a
"successful counter-terrorism operation with our allies in El Salvador” through which “the United
41 The Department of Justice's implementation ofrestrictions on communications may be in violation of 5 U.S.C.
2302(b)(13).
42 The Department of Justice's implementation ofrestrictions on communications may be in violation of 5 U.S.C.
2302(b)(13).
Page 19 of27States military transferred a group of 17 violent criminals from the Tren de Aragua and MS-13
organizations, including murderers and rapists.
"43
Upon seeing this press release, Mr. Reuveni immediately contacted counsel for DOS and
DHS, including Mazzara, to inquire about the operation referred to in the release. Mazzara refused
to discuss these events with Mr. Reuveni or others at OIL, stating this was a DOD matter, directing
Mr. Reuveni to the Acting General Counsel of the DOD, and instructing Mr. Reuveni not to ask
DHS again about the matter.
Mr. Reuveni then contacted DOD and learned through conversation with Charles Young,
the Acting General Counsel for the Department of Defense, that on March 29, those 17 individuals
had departed Texas on a flight to Guantanamo after the court issued its injunction in D.V.D. Then
on March 30 they were transferred to El Salvador. Young informed Mr. Reuveni that he was not
aware ofthe injunction and appeared upset that DHS had not communicated the existence of the
injunction to DOD. The plain language of the injunction stated that it applied to not only DHS but
also anyone with whom they were "acting in concert.
" 9944
These removals occurred notwithstanding the district court's TRO and absent any
explanation from any agency or other party bound by the D.V.D. injunction as to how DHS had
implemented processes that comported with the injunction. It appeared to Mr. Reuveni that there
was no plausible way these removals did not violate the court order.
Mr. Reuveni reported this development to Ensign and Flentje by phone and email.45 Mr.
Reuveni further informed Ensign that DOD's Young had explicitly referenced Mazzara of DHS
as a point of contact in the removal flight operations, which was inconsistent with Mazzara's
representation to Mr. Reuveni that he had no knowledge ofthe removal operations.
Indeed, over email on Monday March 31 , 2025, at around 5:00 p.m., Mr. Reuveni asked
Mazzara how DHS could take the position that it had nothing to do with the removal operation
when the individuals removed were in DHS-ICE custody in Texas before being transferred to
Guantanamo, and remained in DHS-ICE custody while detained at Guantanamo. Mazzara did not
respond. During this same time DOS attorneys expressed dismay to Mr. Reuveni at the removal
operation, as it clearly appeared to violate the D.V.D. injunction. As with DOD, DOS was bound
by the injunction as the plain language of the order stated that it applied to all with whom DHS
43U.S. Department of State,
“More Foreign Gang Terrorists Deported Out of America,
” March 31 , 2025,
https://www.state.gov/more-foreign-gang-terrorists-deported-out-of-america/.
44D.V.D., (D. Mass. Mar 28, 2025) ECF No. 34, Temporary Restraining Order at p. 1 ,
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69775896/34/dvd-v-us-department-of-homeland-security/ .
45 Bill Melugin (@BillMelugin_ ),
“BREAKING: 17 illegal aliens with serious criminal histories were removed to El
Salvador last night after being held at Guantanamo Bay, WH officials tell Fox News,
" X, March 31 , 2025, 9:47 AM,
https://x.com/BillMelugin_/status/1906719922522357963.
Page 20 of27operated in “ concert,
” and Secretary Rubio's social media post suggested DOS had violated that
injunction through its participation in the removals.
On April 1 , Mr. Reuveni was again told to stop asking questions . Mr. Reuveni received a
phone call from Acting AAG Roth, in which Roth relayed that Bove was very unhappy that Mr.
order. Roth conveyed that Mr. Reuveni should stop emailing agency counsel on the matter, to
instead communicate by phone only, where possible.46 Mr. Reuveni understood this instruction to
be based on leadership's aim to avoid generating written material subject to disclosure through
FOIA. Roth also informed Mr. Reuveni that he should not expect any answers from the agencies
concerning whether the removal operation discussed in the Secretary of State's press release was
in violation of the court order. Mr. Reuveni reported this conversation to Flentje and Ensign
inquiries concerning injunction compliance was , “ let's not respond ."
Reuveni had contacted counsel at various agencies to ascertain whether DOJ had violated a court
requirements ofthe injunction, and provided contrary instruction to DHS and DOD, which resulted
in removals in violation of a court order. This also appears to explain why McHenry insisted on
the inclusion of the footnote in the brief that “the operational effects of [ the ] order is [sic]
ambiguous ": though the injunction plainly had nationwide applicability, which leadership .
to be an attempt to suggest ambiguity where there was none . The evident goal was to provide cover
OIL, interfered with DOJ- OIL's efforts to ensure agency clients were informed about the
acknowledged , operators at high levels ofpolitical leadership apparently planned and implemented
sometime that afternoon , with Ensign reaffirming that the DOJ position on responding to plaintiffs '
operations that violated a court order. In retrospect, McHenry's insistence on the footnote appears
for leadership's knowing violation of the nationwide injunction .
The evidence demonstrates that senior DOJ leadership withheld information from DOJ-
C. Kilmar Abrego Garcia: Wrongful removal with unsubstantiated gang allegations;
Government made legally erroneous claim that withholding of removal can be
revoked without due process
The third illegal order arose in connection with Abrego Garcia v. Noem , 25-cv-951 (D.
Md. ). On March 15 , 2025 , as part of the Alien Enemies Act operation described above, DHS
removed a Maryland resident, Mr. Kilmar Abrego Garcia , to the CECOT prison in El Salvador
without lawful basis . On March 24 , 2025 , Mr. Abrego Garcia's attorneys filed a complaint in the
United States District Court for the District of Maryland alleging this removal was in violation of
an October 10, 2019 , Immigration udge order prohibiting his removal to El Salvador.
46 The Department of ustice's implementation of restrictions on communications may be in violation of5 U.S.C.
2302 (b )( 13 ) .
Page 21 of271. Mr. Reuveni took on Abrego Garcia case where government's record showed Mr.
Abrego Garcia was erroneously removed
Mr. Reuveni learned of this complaint on the date of filing, and in his new role as Acting
Deputy Director took the case on personally so that more junior attorneys would not have to work
on such a high -profile and sensitive matter.
It has been the prior practice going back years in situations where DHS removed someone
in error to seek to resolve cases without further litigation by correcting the error. Indeed , it was
Mr. Reuveni's understanding that the Solicitor General of the United States had informed the
Supreme Court that the policy of the United States is to return wrongfully removed migrants as a
matter of course if the Supreme Court or a U.S. court of appeals has ruled that the migrant has the
legal right to remain in the country.4 47
Therefore , despite the high -profile nature of the case , Mr. Reuveni initially believed the
case could be resolved through a straightforward return of Mr. Abrego Garcia to the United States .
Accordingly, beginning on March 24 when the case was filed, through the date ofthe hearing on
April 4, Mr. Reuveni and other agency counsel from DHS and DOS continuously discussed the
possibility of requesting Mr. Abrego Garcia's return to U.S. custody. During this time , they also
discussed the possibility that pending his return , DOS could ask the government ofEl Salvador for
assurances of Mr. Abrego Garcia's safety at CECOT.
2. On March 31 , 2025, Senior Counselor to the Secretary of Homeland Security
Garcia was a "leader of MS-13 ” without evidence to support the allegation
questions were raised regarding the existence of evidence that Mr. Abrego Garcia was a gang
member and why he was included on the removal flight to CECOT. DHS could not provide direct
evidence of Mr. Abrego Garcia's alleged MS- 13 gang affiliation.
make a number of factual allegations including that Mr. Abrego Garcia was an MS -13 “leader ."
James Percival asked whether the government could allege that Mr. Abrego
Then, on Monday March 31 , 2025 , the day the government's brief was due , Senior
Mr. Reuveni noted that any such factual allegations would need to be supported by evidence such
as a declarant on behalf of DHS.
By at least March 27 , 2025 , in communications including DHS , DOS , and DOJ counsel ,
47
Holder, S. Ct. No. 08-681 (April 24 , 2012 ) ( “upon request with respect to a specific alien who was removed before
prevailing in the courts ; the government will investigate and facilitate the alien's return”) ; U.S. Immigration and
Customs Enforcement, Facilitating the Return to the United States of Certain Lawfully Removed Aliens (Feb. 24,
2012) 1 (Appendix B ) (if an alien "was removed while his or her PFR was pending" and later "prevails before the
Sorto v . Garland , 103 F.4th 242 , 249-53 (4th Cir . 2024) (discussing ICE policy to facilitate returns ).
Counselor to the Secretary of Homeland Security James Percival asked whether the brief could
U.S. Supreme Court or a U.S. court of appeals , " ICE “will facilitate the alien's return to the United States”) ; Lopez-
See Letter from Deputy Solicitor General Michael Dreeben to Clerk of the Supreme Court re: Jean Marc Nken v .
Page 22 of27Approximately two hours after the exchange between Percival and Mr. Reuveni, DHS
provided a declaration. The declarant was Robert Cerna, acting field office director (AFOD) for
Enforcement and Removal Operations at Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Through
Cerna's declaration DHS conceded that because Mr. Abrego Garcia had obtained “withholding of
removal" protection, DHS had no legal authority to remove him to his home country ofElSalvador.
Nevertheless, Mr. Abrego Garcia was, according to Cerna, placed on a plane to El Salvador.
Cerna stated that “ICE was aware of this grant ofwithholding of removal at the time [sic] Abrego
Garcia's removal from the United States” and that “[r] eference was made to this status on internal
forms,
” but yet “[t]hrough administrative error, Abrego Garcia was removed from the United
States to El Salvador . . . This was an oversight.
” Cerna also could not personally confirm and
declined to attest to Mr. Abrego Garcia's gang membership, let alone his status as an MS- 13
"leader.
" Instead, Cerna's declaration stated that Mr. Abrego Garcia was removed on March 15
based on his "purported membership in MS - 13 .
” (Emphasis added). Cerna's declaration was
included as an exhibit to the brief submitted to the court on March 31 along with decisions from
immigration adjudicators referencing MS- 13 gang allegations but lacking in direct supporting
evidence of those allegations.
3. Mr.Reuveni raised concerns about sufficiency of the evidence and urged remedial
actions to address Mr. Abrego Garcia's erroneous removal
After the brief was filed, because DHS had still not presented direct evidence justifying
Mr. Abrego Garcia's removal, Mr. Reuveni repeatedly and consistently requested updates on
efforts to secure Mr. Abrego Garcia's return to the U.S. and assurances of his safety in CECOT.
Mr. Reuveni was surprised that lawyers for both DHS and DOS informed Mr. Reuveni that they
would only consider any action to attempt to remedy the illegal removal of Mr. Abrego Garcia if
DOJ leadership approved it.
DOJ leadership never did. Instead, on several occasions on April 2 and 3 through both
phone calls and email, Mr. Reuveni was directed by McHenry, through Roth and Ensign, to cease
making requests of DHS and DOS, to stop asking for facts supporting any possible defense ofthe
case, that no "asks” of El Salvador of any sort should be made, and to rest on threshold
jurisdictional arguments at the hearing.48
Mr. Reuveni raised concerns in multiple emails to both DHS and DOS about the sufficiency
of the evidence to support Mr. Abrego Garcia's alleged gang affiliation and the lack of action to
correct his erroneous removal. Mr. Reuveni also raised those concerns in multiple emails and
phone calls to his DOJ leadership, including Roth and Ensign, on several occasions on April 1-4.
48The Department of Justice's implementation ofrestrictions on communications may be in violation of 5 U.S.C.
2302(b)(13).
Page 23 of274. After Mr. Reuveni repeated in court, per the record, the government's concession
that Mr.Abrego Garcia was erroneously removed, Ensign asked Mr. Reuveni for
the first time why he did not argue that Mr. Abrego Garcia was a terrorist
At oral argument on Friday, April 4 before Judge Paula Xinis in the U.S. District Courtfor
the District of Maryland, and in the brief he signed that was submitted to the court, which was
reviewed by DOJ and DHS and agency leadership including Ensign and Mazzara, Mr. Reuveni
made the threshold jurisdictional arguments and informed the court as conceded by the ICE
declarant that the removal of Mr. Abrego Garcia was in error.4 49
A few minutes after the hearing, Mr. Reuveni went from the courtroom to the U.S.
Attorney's office space in the court building. The press had been present at the hearing, and bythe
time he was leaving the courtroom, Mr. Reuveni had already received multiple text messages
sharing news headlines about his statements to the court. Mr. Reuveni also received an email from
Ensign directing Mr. Reuveni to call him, which Mr. Reuveni did. On that call, Ensign asked Mr.
Reuveni - for the first time – why Mr. Reuveni had not argued that Mr. Abrego Garcia was a
terrorist and that therefore his withholding of removal order was invalid. Mr. Reuveni told Ensign
words to the effect of,
“I understand you've seen the headlines, but read the transcript, I did not
say the things the headlines say that I said.
"
Ensign asked Mr. Reuveni why he did not argue that Mr. Abrego Garcia was a member of
a terrorist organization or that being a member of such organization meant Mr. Abrego Garcia's
protection from removal to El Salvador was nullified. Mr. Reuveni told Ensign he did not make
those arguments because: 1 ) those were not arguments in the government's briefs, which Ensign
had reviewed; 2) there was no evidence in the record to support the arguments; and 3) the laws
governing withholding of removal do not support a theory that declaring someone a member of a
terrorist organization retroactively nullifies a grant ofwithholding relief. Ensign had little reaction
but called again a few minutes later asking similar questions and informing Mr. Reuveni thatthese
inquiries were prompted by the White House. Mr. Reuveni again repeated the same concerns he
had on the first call.
Indeed, in order to revoke a grant of withholding of removal, binding federal regulations
require the government to move to reopen removal proceedings in the United States and make an
affirmative showing that the withholding grant is no longer warranted.50 Further, the only evidence
submitted by DHS at the time of the filing of the government's brief and by the date of oral
arguments, the Cerna declaration, did not support a terrorist designation, given Cerna's
49 The government's briefraised three jurisdictional arguments, conceding the merits, arguing that: (1 ) the court
lacked habeas jurisdiction because Mr. Abrego Garcia was in Salvadoran custody, (2) Plaintiffs' claims lacked
redressability for Article III standing purposes, and ( 3) a provision ofthe INA, 8 U.S.C. § 1252(g ), stripped the court
ofjurisdiction to hear Plaintiffs'claims.
508 C.F.R. § 1208.24(f ).
Page 24 of27equivocation on Mr. Abrego Garcia's alleged gang membership and the absence of any other
supporting evidence.
5. Mr. Reuveni refused to sign an appeal brief with arguments unsupported by
evidence or law and was put on administrativeleave in retaliation for his protected
activity and refusal to obey an illegal order
That same afternoon of Friday April 4 , Roth circulated an outline of an appeal brief to
multiple attorneys, including Mr. Reuveni. Mr. Reuveni understood that his name would appear
on this brief .Mr.Reuveni responded to that email, including Roth and others, with the same points
he had told Ensign in their phone call. Additionally, he noted that because the government had not
argued that Mr. Abrego Garcia was a member of a terrorist organization to the court in the brief
DOJ and agency leadership cleared for filing, it could not do so on appeal for the first time.
That evening, Mr. Reuveni received an email with a draft brief that made the same legal
arguments to which Mr. Reuveni had consistently objected. Mr. Reuveni responded saying that
the draft briefstill contained the arguments discussed earlier that were not supported by law or the
record.
Then later that night, the appeal brief was again circulated. This time, the same arguments
Mr. Reuveni had objected to were moved to a different section of the brief. Mr. Reuveni emailed
Flentje and said that he could not sign the brief given the unsupported arguments. Early the
morning ofSaturday, April 5, Flentje emailed Mr. Reuveni and asked him to call him. Mr. Reuveni
and Flentje had a phone call around 1:20 a.m. in which Mr. Reuveni again repeated the same
objections he had made previously. Flentje told Mr. Reuveni that he should sign the brief, and that
he had signed up for the responsibility to do so when he accepted the Deputy position. Mr. Reuveni
responded,
“I didn't sign up to lie.
” Ultimately, someone else signed that brief, making arguments
contrary to law, which was filed at 1:41 a.m. on April 5.
Less than seven hours later, Mr. Reuveni was placed on administrative leave for alleged
"failure to follow a directive from your superiors; failure to zealously advocate on behalf ofthe
United States; and engaging in conduct prejudicial to your client.
” The letter signed by Deputy
Attorney General Todd Blanche placing Mr. Reuveni on administrative leave was leaked to the
press and reported that same day.51 The news report included a statement from Attorney General
Pam Bondi, that,
“At my direction, every Department of Justice attorney is required to zealously
advocate on behalf of the United States...Any attorney who fails to abide by this direction will
face consequences.
'
"52 On April 11 , Mr. Reuveni was terminated without notice.
51 Thrush,
52 Thrush,
“ Justice Dept.Accuses"
“ Justice Dept. Accuses"
Page 25 of27IV. Unlawful Retaliation
In the weeks following the notable March 14 meeting during which Bove stated DOJ might
have to tell a federal court "fuck you” to implement the administration's removal priorities, Mr.
Reuveni witnessed and internally reported to his DOJ leadership multiple incidents that led him to
reasonably believe the government was in violation of court orders. Mr. Reuveni also expressed,
to personnel who were in contact with and who were relaying directives from the White House,
his unwillingness to obey an order he reasonably believed to be unlawful, namely to file a brief
with misrepresentations to the United States District Court for the District ofMassachusetts. Mr.
Reuveni's management interfered with his ability to perform his duties in accordance with his
obligations of professional responsibility to his clients and to the court.
Then, on April 4, 2025, Mr. Reuveni made truthful representations to Judge Paula Xinis
about the government's own record in the case of Mr. Kilmar Abrego Garcia, abiding by his
obligations under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Rules ofProfessional Conduct.The
next day, Mr. Reuveni refused a directive from DOJ leadership to file an emergency appeal brief
in Mr. Abrego Garcia's case that Mr. Reuveni reasonably believed asserted arguments thatwere
contrary to law, frivolous, and untrue.
In reprisal for his whistleblowing and refusal to obey illegal orders, Mr. Reuveni was
placed on administrative leave on April 5, 2025, and removed from federal service on April 11 ,
2025, both violations of 5 U.S.C. § 2302. The Whistleblower Protection Act (WPA), among other
protections, prohibits federal agencies from taking retaliatory personnel actions against employees
who raise whistleblower concerns internally and who refuse to obey illegal orders. There is no
question here, particularly based on this administration's own statements, that these actions taken
against Mr. Reuveni were meant to silence Mr. Reuveni and other DOJ attorneys who resist
unlawful actions.
Instead, Mr. Reuveni will continue to tell the truth in defense of the rule of law. Mr.
Reuveni both exercises his rights to make protected whistleblower disclosures and seeks a remedy
for DOJ's due process violation in terminating him without notice, and for DOJ's unlawful
retaliation against him under the WPA with the Merit Systems Protection Board.
V. Conclusion
Mr. Reuveni refuses to stay silent despite the retaliation he has already faced and the serious
risk of additional retaliation for his choice to continue to exercise his rights by disclosing to
Congress, the DOJ Inspector General, and the Office of Special Counsel information about senior
DOJ and White House leadership's intent and action to defy the rule of law. The consequences of
DOJ's actions Mr. Reuveni reports have grave impacts not only for the safety of individuals
removed from the country in violation of court orders, but also for the constitutional rights and
Page 26 of27protections of all persons – citizen and noncitizen alike – who are potential victims of flagrant ,
deliberate disregard ofdue process and the rule of law by the agency charged with upholding it.
Mr. Reuveni does not make these disclosures lightly. In his disclosures he has carefully
exercised his rights under the Whistleblower Protection Act to report serious illegality and abuses
of power, consistent with and in compliance with the Rules of Professional Conduct . Mr. Reuveni
remains committed to the rule of law and to his oath as an attorney and as a nonpartisan civil
across administrations:
I, Erez Reuveni, do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution
of the United States against all enemies , foreign and domestic ; that I will bear true
faith and allegiance to the same ; that I take this obligation freely, without any
servant that he swore when he joined the Department ofJustice in 2010 and that he has carried out
mental reservation or purpose of evasion ; and that I will well and faithfully
discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter . So help me God . 53
Special Counsel remain similarly committed to their oaths of office and discharge their duties of
oversight and accountability without fear or favor.
Respectfully Submitted,
We askthat members of Congress , the DOJ Inspector General , and the leadership of the Office of
Dana L. Gold
Government Accountab
1612 K Street, NW , Suite 808
Washington,
D.C. 20006
Andrea Meza
(202 ) 926-3306
Government Accountability Project
1612 K Street, NW , Suite 808
Washington, D.C. 20006
(202)926-3311
Kevin L. Owen
Gilbert Employment Law, P.C.
8403 Colesville Rd. , Suite 1000
Silver Spring, MD 20910
(301) 608-0880
Attorneys for Erez Reuveni
53 5 U.S.C. §
No comments:
Post a Comment