In a rare judicial rebuke with potentially explosive consequences, a top federal judge in Washington hinted Thursday at the possibility of disciplining Justice Department lawyers over a clandestine deportation operation that spiraled into legal chaos earlier this year.
The drama centers around the abrupt removal of Venezuelan detainees to a Salvadoran prison in March—an act that now faces intense scrutiny, not just for its legality, but for what a whistleblower alleges was a calculated defiance of court orders.
U.S. District Judge James Boasberg, no stranger to political crossfire, told a packed courtroom he is weighing whether to refer DOJ attorneys to state bar associations for possible disciplinary action. He also left open the option of involving the court’s own grievance committee, citing serious concerns about the lawyers’ honesty and compliance during ongoing litigation.
“This court has a duty to assess whether government counsel upheld their obligations to the law and to this bench,” Boasberg said from the bench, visibly irritated.
At the center of the case is a lawsuit filed by the ACLU on behalf of a group of Venezuelan men—accused, without evidence shared publicly, of gang affiliations—who were deported under an obscure 18th-century statute. After being sent to El Salvador’s controversial CECOT mega-prison, they spent four months in detention before being returned to Venezuela last week in a quiet prisoner exchange.
Attorneys representing the migrants maintain their clients were never granted a fair chance to contest the charges or the deportation. Meanwhile, the DOJ has argued that no binding court order was violated and that Boasberg’s verbal instructions during emergency proceedings weren’t formal enough to constitute an order.
But then came the whistleblower.
Erez Reuveni, a former senior DOJ attorney fired in April, submitted a complaint alleging that department leaders intentionally disobeyed judicial instructions not once, but three times—each instance tied to the rapid orchestration of the controversial deportations.
Boasberg seemed especially troubled by the complaint, stating it “reinforces the concern that what occurred here was not merely miscommunication but deliberate obstruction.”
The judge’s efforts to probe the administration’s actions have been hampered by a divided federal appeals court, which in April issued a temporary stay halting his inquiry. Still, Boasberg signaled Thursday that he remains undeterred.
As the legal maneuvering plays out, Trump-era figures have begun to push back. Former Attorney General Pam Bondi blasted the whistleblower on social media, labeling Reuveni a “disgruntled employee” and “leaker.”
No word yet from the DOJ, which has remained publicly silent.
For now, the shadow of professional misconduct looms large over a case that began as an immigration dispute—but may end with courtroom accountability at the highest levels of federal law enforcement.
