‘I'm willing to take the heat': Immigration lawyer is facing sanctions from Trump's DOJ over deportation case
Joshua Schroeder appears to be the first attorney to be singled out by Justice Department lawyers in court documents following the president's push to punish law firms and immigration attorneys over what he considers 'frivolous, unreasonable, and vexatious' claims.
'I am not worried. I willingly take hard cases, and I'm not afraid to lose them,' Shroeder told The Independent on Thursday. 'When the motion came in, I didn't know it would be a story. I just kind of thought, 'well, I guess I'm gonna fight that too.''
The sanctions motion, first reported by Politico, followed Schroeder's attempts to block the government from deporting his client, a Hmong immigrant identified in court documents as V.L., who has a green card and immigrated to the United States as a child in 1987. He was living with his wife in Oklahoma when he was arrested during a routine Immigration and Customs Enforce check-in. The government pushed to deport him to Laos, according to court filings.
In court filings, Schroeder argued that his removal to Laos 'could be deadly.'
Schroeder had successfully temporarily blocked his removal while the legal challenge continued, but V.L. was moved to detention in Guam from another facility in Texas to prepare for his removal. Despite Schroeder's appeals, V.L. was deported in June.
Schroeder, who is working on the case pro bono, had asked for court orders to block V.L.'s removal — pointing to, among other things, the Trump administration's aggressive push to summarily deport immigrants to a brutal El Salvador prison and so-called 'third countries' beyond the jurisdiction of U.S. courts.
'The president is using orders of removal as permission slips to do whatever he wants,' Schroeder told The Independent. 'The reason we don't know what he would do is we have no notice or an opportunity to be heard about how broad these orders can be used.'
In March, Trump invoked the Alien Enemies Act to swiftly deport Venezuelan men accused of being members of the Tren de Aragua gang, which many of their attorneys and family members have denied. Government attorneys have also admitted that 'many' of the dozens of immigrants deported under the law — and then sent to El Salvador's notorious CECOT prison — have no criminal records whatsoever.
In court filings, Schroeder said Trump's use of the Alien Enemies Act unleashed 'unbounded war powers that could apply to any immigrant or disfavored U.S. citizen,' and argued that V.L. may similarly be targeted.
In June, the federal judge overseeing the case in Guam District Court dismissed the case, noting that the government's removal 'is not based' on the Alien Enemies Act, and that Schroeder had made an 'improper invocation' of that law to challenge V.L.'s detention and removal.
Nearly two months later, the Trump administration is now asking that judge to punish Schroeder over those arguments.
'I didn't make money from this. It was a very high cost to me, and very difficult,' he told The Independent. 'And the profession depends upon these pro bono cases. It depends upon normal, ordinary lawyers being willing to take time out of their schedule to help people who can't pay. And if we don't have that, if that all dries up, we're going to have a huge due process issue, not just for immigrants.'
The president has raised dozens of legal threats aimed at his ideological opponents and issued a series of executive orders targeting the law firms representing them.
In March, the president ordered Attorney General Pam Bondi 'to seek sanctions against attorneys and law firms who engage in frivolous, unreasonable, and vexatious litigation against the United States' — including immigration lawyers.
Lawyers for the government have accused Schroeder of arguing that he falsely claimed V.L. was facing removal under the Alien Enemies Act and continued to do so despite arguments and court orders stressing that V.L. was being deported under standard immigration law.
A sanctions motion filed on August 1 accuses Schroeder of acting 'unreasonably and vexatiously.' The motion claims Schroeder continued to insist the government was trying to deport his client under the Alien Enemies Act while he 'knew that assertion to be false.'
The 29-page complaint accuses him of making 'bad faith' arguments, 'and even if Schroeder did not know that his arguments were frivolous, at a minimum, he recklessly maintained his frivolous arguments.'
The Justice Department is also seeking sanctions as a 'deterrent' to other lawyers to prevent 'frivolous claims that would stoke unnecessary controversy,' government lawyers wrote.
Legal experts have warned that the motion amounts to a significant turning point in the administration's avalanche of legal battles that appears aimed at preventing other lawyers from taking on cases against the government.
'This is just harassment of good and reasonable lawyers [and] I expect judges and the bar will see through this ruse from Trump's DOJ,' wrote Ciara Torres-Spelliscy, a Fellow at the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law
The Trump administration is 'stripping away a core tenet of our justice system — the ability to defend oneself against [government] accusations,' according to Justice Connection, a network of Justice Department alumni.
'This will have a chilling effect on lawyers willing to take on clients against DOJ,' the group said.
Schroeder, meanwhile, says the motion will not prevent him from continuing to represent immigrant clients.
'I'm willing to take the heat. I'm not afraid. If bad things happen, they happen,' he told The Independent. 'I'm willing to go down, but I'm not going to give up.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
15 minutes ago
- The Guardian
A ‘bias monitor' for CBS News is a bad idea. Here's why
For years before I became the public editor at the New York Times, I admired the work of journalists doing the job of holding their own newsrooms accountable to high standards. And when I heard that CBS News would get a position something like that, I thought – briefly – that this could be a positive development. After all, the network's credibility and independence has come under fire after its parent company settled a frivolous lawsuit brought by Donald Trump. Paramount Global, the CBS parent company, was bashed for capitulating to political pressure in order to get federal approval for a merger with another media company. I quickly changed my mind once I learned the details. This is not a traditional ombudsman but what some have dubbed a 'bias monitor' who will receive and evaluate claims of bias in the network's journalism and report on them to the corporation's president. Appointing such a person was part of the FCC's recent approval of Paramount's merger with Skydance. Other conditions included agreeing to Trump priorities such as rooting out diversity programs. The new job 'seems designed to ensure little critical is aired about the current administration', said Glenn Kessler, the longtime Washington Post journalist and editor of the Fact Checker, who is now writing a Substack newsletter. Kessler also noted that the Trump-appointed FCC chair, Brendan Carr, in commenting on the new position, compared it to the creation of an ombudsman decades ago when General Electric bought NBC. But that regulator was designed to ensure NBC's editorial independence and to guard against interference from the new owner, a business conglomerate. In sharp contrast, Kessler told me, this 'newfangled ombudsman suggests CBS will not have independence from political interference'. Public editors are there to serve the reader and to provide transparency and accountability. It's to the Guardian's credit that it maintains a 'readers' editor'; NPR boasts a similar position. Elisabeth Ribbans recently unpacked how the Guardian handled a controversial story about a malnourished child in Gaza; Kelly McBride examined complaints that NPR had failed to give sufficient coverage to anti-Trump demonstrations. But many news organizations have terminated the role, sometimes stating that it is redundant since social media gives voice to critics. I never bought that explanation. Public editors can do something that even the most impassioned outside critics can't do – get response from internal decision makers, consider all points of view, and publish their conclusions on the very site in which the journalism originally appeared. Decades ago at the Washington Post, Bill Green did an exemplary investigation of how the paper came to publish 'Jimmy's World' – a fabricated story about an eight-year-old heroin addict. The Post gave him free rein and then published his 18,000-word findings over several pages. At the New York Times, Clark Hoyt wrote columns criticizing the overuse of anonymous sources and considering complaints about how the Jerusalem bureau chief's son had served in the Israeli military. Job requirements for public editors, therefore, include fairness, independence and a thick skin. The Times position was sometimes called 'the worst job in journalism' because you were often writing something that would tick off your newsroom colleagues. That didn't scare me. When I heard, in 2012, that the Times job was going to be open, I applied and got the gig. My nearly four years weren't easy, but I had the great advantage of a publisher – Arthur O Sulzberger Jr – who believed in the role and supported my work. The best part by far was hearing from Times readers how much they appreciated the opportunity to be heard, and to understand what was going on behind the scenes. I always felt I reported not to the newsroom editors, or to Sulzberger, but to the Times readership. I was disappointed when the paper – on the verge of getting a new publisher in Sulzberger's son – decided to abolish the role in 2017. By then, I had settled into my new job as Washington Post media columnist; there was no ombudsman there any more. The Post had ended that role a few years earlier. In both cases, I thought it was a loss for readers, for credibility and even for the papers' own staffs, who often appreciated the work, especially when they weren't the ones under the magnifying glass. It's simple, really. As journalists, we hold others to account. A good public editor can do the same for the newsroom itself. But a 'bias monitor' set up in a highly politicized environment – as part of corporate maneuvering to clear the path for a merger – is not designed to continue that tradition. Margaret Sullivan is a Guardian US columnist writing on media, politics and culture
BBC News
34 minutes ago
- BBC News
Teenage arrested after three shot in New York City's Times Square
A 17-year-old suspect has been arrested after three people were shot in New York City's Times Square in the early hours of rang out at around 01:20 EDT (05:20 GMT) at West 44th Street and Seventh Avenue, below the towering billboards in one of the world's busiest tourist teenager has not been named by police, and charges were shooting comes three months before the election for New York mayor, and as President Donald Trump sends federal agents into the streets of Washington DC to crack down on crimes committed by young people. The shooting in Times Square erupted during a fight outside a Raising Cane's chicken restaurant. It stemmed from a dispute, according to the New York Police Department. A handgun was recovered at the say a 19-year-old man was shot in the foot, a 65-year-old man was hit in the left leg and an 18-year old woman was grazed in the were all admitted to hospital in a stable month, a gun attack on an office building left four workers dead in Midtown Manhattan. The suspected gunman, a 27-year-old from Nevada, was believed to be targeting the National Football League (NFL) to New York police, the city has seen historically low levels of gun violence in recent months. The city recorded the fewest shootings and gunshot victims on record in the first seven months of Friday, Trump ordered federal agents into the streets of Washington DC to curb "totally out of control" levels of DC's homicide rate remains relatively high compared to other US cities, with a total of 98 such killings recorded so far this year. Homicides have been trending higher in the US capital compared with a decade ago. But federal data from January shows that Washington DC last year recorded its lowest overall violent crime figures - once car-jacking, assault and robberies are incorporated - in 30 years. The city had the highest per capita murder rate in the US during the 1990s. On Saturday, Trump announced plans on Truth Social to host a news conference at the White House on Monday, "which will, essentially, stop violent crime in Washington, DC".
Daily Mail
34 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
CEO of AI company gets bloodied pig's head in horror package as he's called a 'Clark Kent knockoff'
The CEO of an AI startup in Las Vegas receives a package containing a severed pig's head and threatening letter - believed to stem from his company's use of artificial intelligence. Blake Owens, founder and CEO of Agrippa, an AI-powered platform to connect commercial real estate investors and developers without traditional brokers, received the bloodied pig's head along with the menacing note on July 29. The gruesome parcel was sent to a relative's home, and the message criticized Owens' use of AI - with personal insults that called him a 'Clark Kent knockoff' and ended ominously with: 'And don't get greedy because pigs get fat and hogs get slaughtered.' SCROLL DOWN FOR VIDEO Owens told KLAS: 'Perhaps this person watched too much of The Godfather. 'Needless to say, I still take it very seriously, but don't feel like I'm being truly threatened. It was a message.' The note was signed only with the initial 'M' and appeared to be motivated by a June TV segment that profiled Owens and Agrippa's AI tool, known as 'Marcus', to automate real estate transactions by matching developers with investors and evaluating property bids. The sinister letter also said: 'AI is not going to replace brokers. Clearly you don't understand real estate wasn't built by developers or investors. And it sure as hell wasn't built by tech guys in Lululemon. It was built by brokers. We did it the hard way. No shortcuts, no tech, just people.' Owens said he believed the sender was fearful of being displaced by automation. The businessman said: 'I understand this person is probably just frustrated that business isn't going well for them, and then they see AI replacement stories on top of that. And I just so happen to be someone they can focus their frustration on.' A photo of the package showed the sender was labeled as 'Marcus Agrippa' - a reference to the company's AI system. Owens joked: 'Is this a message that you know your own AI is turning against you? I wasn't quite sure how to interpret it.' Las Vegas PD confirmed it was investigating the incident and classified it as a harassment case. A suspect was yet to be identified. Owens said he did not feel 'genuinely threatened' and would not press charges should the sender be eventually identified. He told KLAS: 'I don't want to punch down on this person; they may be in a tough spot in life. I do see this as an opportunity to show people you don't become a better person by making another man a lesser person.' Owens also addressed potential anxiety surrounding AI's growing presence in the workforce, particularly in fields such as real estate that had historically relied on personal relationships. He said: 'You know, people are scared. They feel displaced and when disruption moves faster than education, fear just fills the gap.' Owens added that Agrippa was not designed to replace humans but it was created to empower professionals through AI. He said: '[Winston Churchill] said to be perfect is to change often. I think a lot of people are afraid of change and what's coming with AI, because it really is a tsunami of change that people are trying to resist. But the more you embrace it, the better you'll do, the more skills that you'll accumulate, more value you'll bring to the table.' Despite the threatening nature of the package, Owens remained committed to encouraging dialogue and told Inman: 'If I knew who this person was, I'd say, "Hey, feel free to reach out to me - maybe not with a package, just send me an email - I'm happy to share whatever education I can on keeping up with AI."' The investigation into the incident remained ongoing.
