Listen to the article
Immigration Attorney Alleges Termination After Refusing to Support “False Narrative” in Controversial Deportation Case
A former Department of Justice attorney claims he was fired after refusing to sign a legal brief that falsely characterized a Salvadoran man as an MS-13 gang member and terrorist, according to a new CBS News report. The case highlights growing concerns about due process in immigration proceedings during the Trump administration.
Erez Reuveni, once praised by Trump officials for defending the administration’s immigration policies, told CBS News that he declined to support what he described as fabricated allegations against Kilmar Abrego García, a Salvadoran national who was wrongfully deported in March and has been fighting a legal battle against federal authorities ever since.
“I took an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution,” Reuveni said in the interview. “And my view of that oath is that I need to speak up and draw attention to what has happened to the department, what is happening to the rule of law. I would not be faithfully abiding by my oath if I stayed silent right now.”
The attorney described a troubling incident where his supervisor pressured him to sign off on the brief containing false information about Abrego García. “I respond up the chain of command, no way. That is not correct. That is not factually correct. It is not legally correct. That is a lie. And I cannot sign my name to that brief,” Reuveni recounted.
Following his refusal, Reuveni was terminated from his position. In June, he filed a whistleblower complaint with support from the Government Accountability Project, a nonprofit organization that protects whistleblowers.
The allegations come amid increasing scrutiny of immigration enforcement tactics. According to Ryan Goodman, a law professor at New York University cited in the CBS report, his team has identified more than 35 cases where judges accused the federal government of submitting false or misleading information in immigration proceedings.
“It might be intentionally false information, including false sworn declarations time and again,” Goodman noted, suggesting this may represent a systemic issue rather than isolated incidents.
Abrego García’s case has become emblematic of broader concerns about immigration enforcement. After being wrongfully deported to El Salvador earlier this year, he has remained trapped in a complex legal fight with U.S. immigration authorities who are pushing to deport him again once his current case concludes.
In recent developments, Abrego García was transferred from a detention facility in Virginia to one in Pennsylvania. The Trump administration has rejected his claims of potential persecution in Uganda, noting that he has raised similar concerns about at least 22 other countries, including El Salvador, Mexico, Cuba, Colombia, and Venezuela.
In an unexpected turn, authorities are now attempting to deport Abrego García to Eswatini, a small landlocked nation in southern Africa formerly known as Swaziland. Human rights organizations have long criticized the country, which is ruled by King Mswati III, for its restrictions on political freedoms and treatment of migrants.
Immigration advocates argue that deporting Abrego García to Eswatini would violate U.S. commitments under international refugee law, which prohibits returning individuals to countries where they may face persecution or serious harm.
Reuveni’s allegations raise fundamental questions about the integrity of immigration proceedings. “What’s to stop them if they decide they don’t like you anymore, to say you’re a criminal, you’re a member of MS-13, you’re a terrorist?” he asked during his interview. “What’s to stop them from sending in some DOJ attorney at the direction of DOJ leadership to delay, to filibuster, and if necessary, to lie? And now that’s you gone and your liberties changed.”
The case reflects the ongoing tension between aggressive immigration enforcement and legal protections for due process that has characterized U.S. immigration policy in recent years. As Abrego García’s legal battle continues, it may establish important precedents for how similar cases are handled in the future.
Verify This Yourself
Use these professional tools to fact-check and investigate claims independently
Reverse Image Search
Check if this image has been used elsewhere or in different contexts
Ask Our AI About This Claim
Get instant answers with web-powered AI analysis
Related Fact-Checks
See what other fact-checkers have said about similar claims
Want More Verification Tools?
Access our full suite of professional disinformation monitoring and investigation tools
11 Comments
Allegations of the DOJ pressuring lawyers to support false narratives in deportation cases are very concerning. It’s important that immigration proceedings adhere to the Constitution and protect the rights of all individuals.
You’re right, this highlights the need for oversight and accountability within the DOJ to ensure impartial and lawful handling of immigration cases.
This report raises serious concerns about potential misconduct and abuse of power within the DOJ’s immigration enforcement efforts. Fabricating evidence to justify deportations is a clear violation of due process and the principles of justice.
This is a disturbing report about a DOJ lawyer being fired for refusing to label an immigrant as a gang member without justification. It’s critical that the rule of law is upheld, even in sensitive immigration cases.
I agree, due process must be respected. Fabricating evidence against individuals is a dangerous precedent that undermines the integrity of the justice system.
If the details in this report are accurate, it’s troubling that a DOJ lawyer was terminated for refusing to go along with mischaracterizing an immigrant as a gang member. The public deserves transparency and integrity from government agencies.
Absolutely. Upholding the rule of law and due process should be the top priority, even in sensitive policy areas like immigration enforcement.
The alleged firing of this DOJ lawyer for refusing to support false claims against an immigrant is very troubling. Maintaining the integrity of the legal system should be the top priority, even in politically charged immigration cases.
Absolutely. Upholding the Constitution and the rule of law must take precedence over political agendas or expediency. This case highlights the need for robust oversight and accountability within government agencies.
This case raises serious questions about potential abuses of power and due process violations within the immigration system. It’s critical that the DOJ maintains objectivity and follows the law in all proceedings.
I agree, this is a concerning development that warrants close scrutiny. The public must have confidence that the DOJ is acting in good faith and respecting the rights of all individuals.