DoJ leader suggested defying courts over deportations, whistleblower says
Emil Bove, the Department of Justice's principal associate deputy attorney general, who Donald Trump nominated for the US court of appeals for the third circuit, reportedly said the department 'would need to consider telling the courts 'fuck you'' when it came to orders blocking the deportation of undocumented people.
Former attorney at the justice department, Erez Reuveni, claimed Bove said the agency should violate court orders. In a whistleblower letter to members of Congress first obtained by the New York Times, Reuveni painted the scene of a lawless justice department willingly to defy the courts and fire the people who stood in their way.
Related: 'Clouded in mystery': how Ice became a rogue agency that does Trump's bidding
'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,'' says the letter, written by his lawyers at the Government Accountability Project.
The comments came in the context of Trump invoking the Alien Enemies Act to deport people on removal flights in mid-March, the letter contends, after Bove 'stressed to all in attendance that the planes needed to take off no matter what'.
At the time of Bove's alleged comments, Reuveni, who was in the meeting, said he was in disbelief. But in the three weeks that followed, his disbelief became 'a relic of a different time' as the department undermined the courts and rule of law. In three separate cases Reuveni was involved in, he found 'internal efforts of DOJ and White House leadership to defy (court orders) through lack of candor, deliberate delay and disinformation'.
Reuveni was a career attorney who had served across multiple administrations for 15 years in the department, including the first Trump administration.
Reuveni says he directly witnessed and reported to his superiors a host of misconduct, including '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 of the court'.
Reuveni had notified the court in the case of Kilmar Ábrego García, the Maryland man erroneously deported to El Salvador who has since returned to the US, that Ábrego García's deportation had been a 'mistake'. He said he refused his superiors' directive to file a brief to the court that would have misrepresented the facts of the case. He was subsequently put on administrative leave and then terminated on 11 April. Trump administration officials have said Reuveni didn't 'vigorously' or 'zealously' defend his client, the United States.
'Discouraging clients from engaging in illegal conduct is an important part of the role of lawyer,' the whistleblower letter says. '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.'
Bove is set for a confirmation hearing on his judicial nomination before the Senate judiciary committee on Wednesday, where the whistleblower's claims are sure to enter into questioning.
The White House and justice department have denied Reuveni's claims, according to the New York Times. Todd Blanche, the deputy attorney general and Bove's boss, called Reuveni's accounts 'falsehoods purportedly made by a disgruntled former employee and then leaked to the press in violation of ethical obligations' and questioned the timing of its release ahead of Bove's confirmation hearing.

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


New York Times
17 minutes ago
- New York Times
Top Senate Official Rules Against Several Key Provisions in G.O.P. Policy Bill
A top Senate official on Thursday rejected a slew of major provisions in Republicans' sweeping domestic policy bill, sending party leaders scrambling to find other ways to help offset the massive cost of the legislation a week before the July 4 deadline President Trump set for its enactment. Elizabeth MacDonough, the parliamentarian who enforces the chamber's rules, said several of the measures in the legislation that would provide tens of billions of dollars in savings could not be included in the legislation in their current form. They include one that would crack down on strategies that many states have developed to obtain more federal Medicaid funds and another that would limit repayment options for student loan borrowers. The rulings dealt a blow to Senate Republicans as they rush to pass the behemoth legislation by Mr. Trump's deadline. Party leaders had hoped to begin voting on the bill this weekend, in order to allow time for the House, which must give final approval to any changes, to pass it early next week, clearing it for the president's signature. Republicans are moving the bill through Congress using special rules that shield it from a filibuster, depriving Democrats of the ability to block it. But to qualify for that protection, the legislation must comply with a rigorous set of budgetary restrictions meant to ensure that it will not add to the deficit. The Senate parliamentarian, an official appointed by the chamber's leaders to enforce its rules and precedents, must evaluate those measures to ensure that every provision meets those requirements. Ms. MacDonough's rulings are closely held by senators and are not released to the public. So it was unclear whether she had suggested the provisions were essentially unsalvageable, or merely needed to be modified. Republicans on the Senate Agriculture Committee, for example, believe they will be able to restore a key provision that Ms. MacDonough earlier struck that would push some of the costs of the food nutrition program known as SNAP to the states. Furious House Republicans on Thursday were agitating for another option: overruling Ms. MacDonough altogether. 'The Senate Parliamentarian is not elected. She is not accountable to the American people. Yet she holds veto power over legislation supported by millions of voters,' Representative Greg Steube of Florida wrote on social media. Republican senators could vote to steer around her guidance, but that move would deal a substantial blow to the filibuster. The vote would set a new precedent that senators can ignore the parliamentarian on budget matters whenever they can muster a majority to do so, and Senator John Thune, Republican of South Dakota and the majority leader, has repeatedly pledged not to take such action.


Boston Globe
41 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
Two Mass. military vets in Congress break from Democratic consensus of outrage over Trump's Iran strike
'I think the world is safer after these strikes than before, but it's also more complicated,' Auchincloss Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up In an interview with the Globe, Auchincloss stood by that assessment, and acknowledged he is in a different place from Democrats who believe that a strike should not have happened. He lamented the lack of any congressional input which made the process worse, but said that if Trump had presented the military plan to Congress, backed up with a clear plan for a diplomatic resolution to Iran's nuclear threat, he would've voted for it. Advertisement Moulton, the Salem Democrat, reserved judgment in the wake of the attacks. 'One of the reasons I was reticent to just immediately condemn the strikes is because anything that gets us back to the negotiating table is helpful — that's where we need to be at the end of the day,' he told the Globe. (Trump said on Wednesday that the US and Iranian sides would talk directly next week.) Advertisement Congressman Seth Moulton speaks during a town hall event at Tewksbury High School on June 16, 2025, in Tewksbury. Danielle Parhizkaran/Globe Staff Asked if he would have voted for the strikes had Trump sought congressional approval, Moulton said, 'I would not; I can't say why.' (The ranking Democrat on the House Armed Services subcommittee with jurisdiction over nuclear arms control, Moulton said he met privately with General Michael Kurilla, the head of the US Central Command, before the strike on Iran.) But Moulton said that one of the lessons he learned from serving in Iraq was 'you should not rush to judgment before you have all the facts… sometimes, something that looks bad turns out to be helpful at the end of the day.' That Auchincloss and Moulton have offered distinct interpretations of the Iran strikes is not especially surprising. Both are generally more pro-Israel than their Democratic colleagues — particularly Auchincloss — and more vocal on the urgency of blocking Iran's path to a nuclear weapon. Both have also been willing to use the phrase 'regime change,' which is politically toxic in many corners following Iraq and Afghanistan. Auchincloss said he did it as a way to 'purposefully poke the bear a little bit and force a conversation' about the role America could play helping Iranians toward self-determination without using force. Moulton also spoke about the desire to see the regime in Tehran gone and advanced that idea in a Wednesday interview, but worried that the strikes might have galvanized support for the Islamist government after speaking with an Iranian-American contact in Boston. Advertisement Still, both Democrats are far from uniformly supportive of any of Trump's other moves on the world stage. Both have been critical of the administration's handling of a number of foreign policy issues on substance and on execution. Asked about the potential difficulty of balancing openness to more aggressive action on Iran with deep opposition to the way Trump handles military and foreign affairs, Auchincloss said, 'everything in Washington is harder with this 'very stable genius' that we're dealing with.' Most Democrats, meanwhile, responded with apprehension and alarm over virtually every aspect of the strikes. Senator Elizabeth Warren summed up the feelings of many in a This divergence in Democrats' reactions to the strikes reflects the party's broader challenges to find a united front not just on their stance on this particularly thorny geopolitical issue, but on Trump in general. Matters could get more complicated as the initial shock of the attack wears off. While fears of a wider war including the US have not materialized—with Trump taking credit for brokering a ceasefire between Iran and Israel that has held—it's still unclear how effective the strikes were. A leaked US intelligence assessment found that the strikes did not obliterate Iran's nuclear program, as the Trump administration has repeatedly suggested. Advertisement Some top party leaders, however, have long navigated a similar balancing act of concerns between Israel, Iran, and Trump, like Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer of New York, a longtime Iran hawk and supporter of Israel. (Schumer has refrained from commenting on the strikes themselves, instead focusing on criticizing Trump's rejection of congressional approval.) But in some ways, Democratic opinion on the issue is narrower and more muted compared to the internal division on display when President Obama pushed to enact the Iran nuclear deal in 2015. A number of Democratic lawmakers opposed the deal—a signature initiative of their own president—when it came to a vote in Congress, fearing it would make Israel less safe. There is far more unity on these questions now than a decade ago, said Ned Price, a former State Department spokesman under President Biden and a National Security Council aide under Obama. 'To the extent there is a lack of consensus' right now, said Price, 'it is on tactics rather than strategy.' 'Yes, there are a couple of outliers—we are a big tent, especially on matters of war and peace,' he continued. 'Not everyone is going to be singing from the same sheet music.' Looking ahead, Auchincloss argued it's too early to say whether the strikes are a success 'because as it stands right now, there is an opportunity, but not a victory.' The opportunity, he said, is for the US to push 'coercive diplomacy,' pushing for a new agreement like the 2015 nuclear deal while also getting tougher on Iran's funding of terrorism through proxy organizations. That's where he and Moulton are in lockstep with the entire Democratic caucus. 'The only way to ensure long-term that Iran doesn't have a nuclear weapon is through a diplomatic deal that allows intrusive inspections,' Moulton said. Advertisement The fact that both Auchincloss and Moulton served in wars in the Middle East doesn't entirely explain their views, but it did impart them with lessons. 'I wanted a clear mission as a Lieutenant. I did not want a garbled chain of command, but that wasn't the problem,' Auchincloss said of his time in Afghanistan in 2012. 'The problem was the mission, and Congress needed to help, and we should help now.' Moulton offered a different point. 'I can't tell you how many times I've been surprised in the Middle East,' he said, 'when something we expect to be good turns out to be bad, and something we expect to be bad turns out to be good.' Sam Brodey can be reached at


Axios
an hour ago
- Axios
Same-sex marriage anniversary spotlights what's at stake in Texas
Texas is one of 32 states where bans on same-sex unions could snap back into place if Obergefell v. Hodges — the landmark Supreme Court decision guaranteeing marriage equality 10 years ago on Thursday — were overturned. Why it matters: A decade later, the milestone for marriage equality remains fragile, particularly in states with pre-existing bans like Texas. By the numbers: About 60% of LGBTQ+ adults live in states where marriage rights would be at risk if Obergefell were struck down, per the Movement Advancement Project. Reality check: Congress codified same-sex and interracial marriage in 2022 with the Respect for Marriage Act, but the law doesn't prevent states from restricting those rights if Obergefell falls.