Listen to the article
Federal Judges Voice Growing Concern Over Justice Department Conduct Under Bondi
A growing number of federal judges are expressing frustration with the Department of Justice under Attorney General Pam Bondi, citing repeated incidents in which government lawyers have been accused of misleading the courts or ignoring judicial orders.
The concerns have intensified following a whistleblower’s account aired on “60 Minutes” and a comprehensive review of federal cases by legal scholars that identified a pattern of problematic behavior in government representations to the courts.
The conflict between federal judges and Bondi’s Justice Department strikes at the foundation of the American legal system—whether courts can still rely on the government’s word in legal proceedings. Allegations that department lawyers misled judges, ignored court orders, and punished internal dissent have prompted rulings from both Republican- and Democratic-appointed judges questioning the government’s candor in court.
Erez Reuveni, a former senior Justice Department attorney specializing in immigration law, told “60 Minutes” that he was fired after refusing to sign a brief he believed contained false claims in the wrongful deportation case of Kilmar Abrego Garcia. Reuveni, who served the department for 15 years across multiple administrations, described an internal culture that increasingly disregarded judicial authority.
“I took an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution,” Reuveni said. “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 former DOJ attorney recounted a March meeting where senior Justice Department official Emil Bove allegedly told attorneys that planes deporting Venezuelan detainees should depart “no matter what,” even if a court ordered otherwise. According to Reuveni, Bove suggested that if a court issued an order preventing deportations, they might have to consider telling that court “F*** you.”
The alleged remark, which Bove has denied making, shocked Reuveni, who viewed it as unprecedented contempt for judicial authority from a high-ranking department official.
When detainees’ lawyers challenged the deportations, U.S. District Judge James Boasberg convened an emergency hearing and asked a government attorney whether the planes were departing that weekend. The attorney claimed not to know, though Reuveni maintains everyone at the earlier meeting had been informed the flights would proceed. Meanwhile, deportations continued while the court hearing was underway.
“It is the highest, most egregious violation of a lawyer’s code of ethics to mislead a court with intent,” Reuveni told “60 Minutes.”
Peter Keisler, who served as acting attorney general under President George W. Bush, emphasized to “60 Minutes” that the Justice Department is bound to obey court orders even when it disagrees with them.
“We have a saying in this country,” Keisler noted. “Everybody deserves their day in court. All of us want to know that if the government acts against us, we will at least have the opportunity to go to a neutral decision-maker and make sure that the government stays within its legal bounds.”
Reuveni claims his refusal to label Abrego Garcia a terrorist in legal filings led to his dismissal. In June, he filed a whistleblower complaint with the Government Accountability Project. The Justice Department, Bondi, and Bove all declined “60 Minutes'” interview requests.
When questioned about the allegations during a later confirmation hearing for a federal judgeship, Bove stated he had “never advised a Justice Department attorney to violate a court order” and described Reuveni’s claims as “a mix of falsehoods and wild distortions of reality.”
Legal scholars contend the issues extend far beyond a single case. Ryan Goodman, a professor at New York University School of Law and founding editor of the nonpartisan site “Just Security,” told “60 Minutes” his team reviewed hundreds of court rulings involving President Donald Trump’s administration.
“We found over 35 cases in which the judges have specifically said what the government is providing is false information. It might be intentionally false information, including false sworn declarations time and again,” Goodman said.
His study documents repeated judicial findings that government lawyers disregarded court rulings or failed to comply with orders, prompting some judges to question the traditional “presumption of regularity” accorded to executive actions—a significant shift in how courts view government representations.
Judges from across the political spectrum have issued strikingly similar criticisms. Judge Paula Xinis stated during a July hearing: “You have taken the presumption of regularity and you’ve destroyed it, in my view.” Judge Amy Berman Jackson wrote in a March order: “The court is left with little confidence that the defense can be trusted to tell the truth about anything.”
Chief Judge James E. Boasberg found “probable cause that defendants willfully disobeyed a binding judicial decree” in an April opinion regarding Venezuelan deportations—an extraordinary finding against the Department of Justice.
The Supreme Court ruled unanimously this spring that everyone deported under the administration’s use of the Alien Enemies Act is entitled to due process—a decision underscoring the principle that even in national security matters, government actions must remain subject to judicial review.
Reuveni’s whistleblower complaint is expected to prompt investigations by oversight bodies and possibly the DOJ inspector general. Federal judges may implement tighter scrutiny of government filings and enforce sanctions for misconduct. Congress could hold hearings to examine whether senior officials disregarded judicial directives or retaliated against career lawyers.
For Attorney General Bondi, the immediate challenge is restoring the department’s credibility with the judiciary and reaffirming its traditional duty of candor. Legal experts warn that if the Justice Department loses its hard-earned presumption of good faith, the damage could outlast any single administration and fundamentally weaken the integrity of the nation’s judicial system.
Fact Checker
Verify the accuracy of this article using The Disinformation Commission analysis and real-time sources.
16 Comments
Allegations of misconduct by DOJ lawyers under Bondi’s leadership are very concerning. Judges shouldn’t have to question the government’s candor in court proceedings. Restoring trust in the justice system should be a top priority.
Absolutely. The government must be held to the highest ethical standards, especially when appearing before the courts. Any evidence of dishonesty or evasion is unacceptable.
I’m troubled to hear about judges expressing frustration with the DOJ’s conduct under AG Bondi. The integrity of the legal system depends on the government acting with honesty and transparency. This situation warrants close scrutiny to ensure public confidence is maintained.
Absolutely. The courts must be able to rely on the government’s representations. Any pattern of misleading the judiciary or ignoring court orders is a serious breach of public trust that needs to be addressed.
Judges expressing frustration with the DOJ’s conduct under Bondi is a worrying development. The courts must be able to trust the government’s representations. I hope this issue is addressed swiftly to preserve the credibility of the justice system.
Agreed. Any perceived lack of candor by government lawyers in court proceedings is unacceptable. Restoring faith in the DOJ’s integrity should be a top priority for leadership.
As someone who follows legal and government affairs, I’m troubled by these reports of the DOJ misleading judges under AG Bondi. The integrity of the courts is paramount, and any appearance of impropriety erodes public confidence.
I share your concerns. The rule of law depends on the government acting with honesty and transparency before the courts. Allegations of deception are very serious and warrant a thorough investigation.
These reports of the DOJ misleading judges under Bondi are very troubling. The courts must be able to trust the government’s representations. Any appearance of impropriety erodes public confidence in the legal system and needs to be addressed urgently.
Absolutely. The integrity of the justice system depends on the government acting with honesty and transparency before the courts. Allegations of deception or disregard for judicial orders are extremely serious and warrant a thorough investigation.
Concerning allegations of the DOJ misleading judges under Bondi’s leadership. The independence and impartiality of the courts is fundamental to the rule of law. I hope this issue is investigated thoroughly and any wrongdoing is dealt with appropriately.
I agree. The government must be held to the highest ethical standards when appearing before the courts. Any lack of candor or disregard for judicial orders is unacceptable and undermines the credibility of the justice system.
Troubling reports of the Justice Department misleading courts under AG Bondi. Judges have a duty to ensure the integrity of the legal system, so I’m glad they are voicing their concerns. The public needs to have confidence that the government is acting in good faith.
I agree. The courts must be able to rely on the government’s representations. If there is a pattern of deception, it strikes at the heart of the rule of law.
These reports of the DOJ misleading judges under Bondi are very concerning. The independence and impartiality of the courts is essential to the rule of law. I hope this issue is investigated thoroughly and any wrongdoing is addressed appropriately.
I share your concern. The government must be held to the highest ethical standards, especially when appearing before the courts. Any evidence of deception or disregard for judicial orders is unacceptable.