Justice Department

Subterms

    More stories

    • 138 Shares65 Views

      in Elections

      Justice Dept. Accuses Top Immigration Lawyer of Failing to Follow Orders

      by

      A senior Justice Department immigration lawyer was put on indefinite leave Saturday after questioning the Trump administration’s decision to deport a Maryland man to El Salvador — one day after representing the government in court.Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche suspended Erez Reuveni, the acting deputy director of the department’s immigration litigation division, for failing to “follow a directive from your superiors,” according to a letter sent to Mr. Reuveni and obtained by The New York Times.Mr. Reuveni — who was praised as a “top-notched” prosecutor by his superiors in an email announcing his promotion two weeks ago — is the latest career official to be suspended, demoted, transferred or fired for refusing to comply with a directive from President Trump’s appointees to take actions they deem improper or unethical.“At my direction, every Department of Justice attorney is required to zealously advocate on behalf of the United States,” Attorney General Pam Bondi wrote in a statement sent to The Times on Saturday. “Any attorney who fails to abide by this direction will face consequences.”Under questioning by a federal judge on Friday, Mr. Reuveni conceded that the deportation last month of Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia, who had a court order allowing him to stay in the United States, should never have taken place. Mr. Reuveni also said he had been frustrated when the case landed on his desk.Mr. Reuveni, a respected 15-year veteran of the immigration division, asked the judge for 24 hours to persuade his “client,” the Trump administration, to begin the process of retrieving and repatriating Mr. Abrego Garcia.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 138 Shares132 Views

      in Elections

      Read Judge Dale Ho’s Ruling in the Eric Adams Corruption Case

      by

      Case 1:24-cr-00556-DEH Document 177 Filed 04/02/25
      Page 40 of 78
      of the leave-of-court requirement in Rule 48(a) is to enable a court to inquire into whether the
      dismissal should be with prejudice”).
      The Second Circuit has thus far declined to “rule out discretionary dismissals with
      prejudice” in similar contexts. Hilbert v. Dooling, 476 F.2d 355, 361 (2d Cir. 1973); see also id.
      at 363 (Friendly, C.J., dissenting) (stressing “the district judge’s discretion” under Rule 48(b) “to
      dismiss either with or without prejudice as he deemed appropriate”). But the “Circuit has not
      specifically addressed” under what circumstances, if any, a court may dismiss an indictment with
      prejudice notwithstanding the government’s request that dismissal be without prejudice. United
      States v. Hernandez-Hernandez, No. 18 Crim. 30, 2018 WL 4765129, at *2 (W.D.N.Y. Sept. 13,
      2018), report and recommendation adopted, 2018 WL 4762255 (W.D.N.Y. Oct. 2, 2018).
      In exercising their discretion to dismiss with prejudice under Rule 48(a), courts have
      generally looked to the same principles that motivate the “leave of court” requirement. In district
      courts for the District of Columbia, where Rule 48(a) is “routinely applied . . . to consider dismissal
      with prejudice,” courts “take into account (1) the purpose of the government’s dismissal, (2) the
      presence or absence of good faith, and (3) the objective effect that dismissal without prejudice
      would have on the defendant.” United States v. Madzarac, 678 F. Supp. 3d 42, 48 (D.D.C. 2023).
      Courts in this District have had less occasion to consider the question, but they have tended to look
      to whether there is a risk of prosecutorial harassment from re-charging of the offense(s) or whether
      there is evidence of bad faith on the part of the prosecution. See, e.g., Doody, 2002 WL 562644,
      at *2 (explaining that “[c]ourts dismiss cases under Rule 48(a) with prejudice or deny such motions
      19 (D.D.C. 2015); Poindexter, 719 F. Supp. at 10-12; United States v. Angilau, No. 08 Crim. 431,
      2012 WL 346446, at *14 (D. Utah Feb. 1, 2012), aff’d in part, appeal dismissed in part, 717 F.3d
      781 (10th Cir. 2013); United States v. Wecht, No. 06 Crim. 26, 2008 WL 65605, at *5-6 (W.D. Pa.
      Jan. 4, 2008); Government of Virgin Islands ex rel. Robinson v. Schneider, 893 F. Supp. 490, 498
      (D.V.I. 1995); United States v. Rossoff, 806 F. Supp. 200, 202-03 (C.D. Ill. 1992); United States
      v. Fields, 475 F. Supp. 903, 904, 908 (D.D.C. 1979).
      40 More

    • 125 Shares144 Views

      in Elections

      Bondi Indicates Signal Chat Episode Will Not Be Criminally Investigated

      by

      Attorney General Pam Bondi signaled on Thursday that there was unlikely to be a criminal investigation into the sharing of military operation details in an unsecured text group, declaring that the specifics of when fighter jets would depart and when bombs would fall were “not classified.”Ms. Bondi, speaking at a news conference in Virginia, was asked about the public debate surrounding Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth after he sent details of a coming attack on rebels in Yemen to senior administration officials in a Signal group chat that accidentally included a magazine editor.“It was sensitive information, not classified, and inadvertently released,” Ms. Bondi said, while praising the military operation that ensued.“What we should be talking about is, it was a very successful mission,” she said, before quickly accusing Democrats from previous administrations of mishandling classified information.“If you want to talk about classified information, talk about what was in Hillary Clinton’s home,” she said. “Talk about the classified documents in Joe Biden’s garage, that Hunter Biden had access to.”The Justice Department opened investigations into Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Biden in those instances, but neither ultimately faced criminal charges. She did not mention the prosecution of Mr. Trump over his handling of classified documents after his first term in office — a case which was ultimately abandoned when he won a second term.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 138 Shares96 Views

      in Elections

      LeShon Johnson, Ex-N.F.L. Running Back, Ran Major Dogfighting Kennel, U.S. Says

      by

      Federal investigators say that they seized 190 pit-bull-type dogs from the former player, who previously pleaded guilty to state dogfighting charges in 2004.The federal authorities said this week that they had broken up a major dogfighting kennel in Oklahoma led by the former National Football League running back LeShon Johnson, seizing 190 pit-bull-type dogs in what they described as the most ever taken from a single person in a federal case.In a news release, the Justice Department said on Tuesday that a 21-count indictment against Mr. Johnson, 54, had recently been unsealed in federal court in Muskogee, Okla. He was arrested on March 20 and arraigned the same day before being released, according to court documents.Mr. Johnson, who played for the Green Bay Packers, the Arizona Cardinals and the New York Giants in the 1990s, is facing felony charges of possessing and trafficking dogs for use in an animal fighting venture. If convicted, he could face up to five years in prison and a $250,000 fine for each count.He previously pleaded guilty to state dogfighting charges in 2004 and received a five-year deferred sentence.“The F.B.I. will not tolerate criminals that harm innocent animals for their twisted form of entertainment,” Kash Patel, the F.B.I. director, said in a statement. “The F.B.I. views animal cruelty investigations as a precursor to larger, organized crime efforts, similar to trafficking and homicides.”Courtney R. Jordan, a lawyer for Mr. Johnson, declined to comment on Wednesday.Investigators say that Mr. Johnson “selectively bred ‘champion’ and ‘grand champion’ fighting dogs — dogs that have respectively won three or five fights” as part of his criminal enterprise, which was known as Mal Kant Kennels and was based in Broken Arrow, Okla., and Haskell, Okla.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 125 Shares122 Views

      in Elections

      Senate Democrats Seek Answers on Firing of Justice Dept. Official

      by

      After a disagreement about giving gun rights back to the actor Mel Gibson, a pardon attorney was fired. Senate Democrats are asking for details, including records or emails, that relate to the decision.Senate Democrats pressed Justice Department officials on Wednesday to explain the firing of the pardon attorney, Elizabeth G. Oyer, who was dismissed amid a disagreement with her superiors about whether to restore the actor Mel Gibson’s right to own guns.Ms. Oyer was one of a number of senior career officials at the Justice Department who were abruptly ousted this month. No reason was cited for the dismissals, but Ms. Oyer told The New York Times that senior department officials pressured her to add Mr. Gibson, an outspoken supporter of President Trump, to a list of people with past convictions who could nevertheless have their gun rights returned to them.The campaign, she said, incited fears that she could be fired over it. Senior Justice Department officials have said the dispute was not the reason for her dismissal.Democrats on the Judiciary Committee, including Senator Richard J. Durbin of Illinois, sent a letter to Attorney General Pam Bondi seeking answers about Ms. Oyer’s firing. Her dismissal, they added, was “particularly troubling in light of the Trump administration’s purge of public servants, seemingly based on whether they are willing to carry out the president’s agenda of political retribution against his perceived enemies.”Senate Democrats are now asking Ms. Bondi to provide an explanation for Ms. Oyer’s firing, the names of the people involved in the move and any records or emails that relate to the decision.“It is vitally important that D.O.J. attorneys be permitted to pursue justice for the United States of America and the American people,” the Democrats wrote, “not serve as the personal law firm to President Trump, handing out legal favors to his rich and famous friends.”Mr. Gibson has not been able to buy a firearm since he pleaded no contest in 2011 to misdemeanor battery against a former girlfriend.The Trump administration has decided that the Justice Department should create a path for gun rights to be restored to some people with convictions. During internal department conversations on the subject, Ms. Oyer said she was particularly worried about giving gun rights to people with domestic violence convictions.“This isn’t political,” she said. “This is a safety issue.”Last week, the department moved forward with its plan to restore gun rights to some convicts, publishing a notice in the Federal Register about the initiative. Still unclear is exactly what criteria will be used to decide who is eligible. A senior Justice Department official has suggested this is only the first of a number of steps the administration plans to make on guns, including making it easier for people to buy silencers, also known as suppressors. More

    • 113 Shares89 Views

      in Elections

      Read the Justice Department’s filing in the Adams case.

      by

      Case 1:24-cr-00556-DEH Document 175-1 Filed 03/25/25
      Page 10 of 15
      the motion is uncontested, the court should ordinarily presume that the prosecutor is acting in good
      faith and dismiss the indictment without prejudice”). But Adams’s consent-which was
      negotiated without my Office’s awareness or participation-would not guarantee a successful
      motion, given the basic flaws in the Department’s rationales. See Nederlandsche Combinatie, 428
      F. Supp. at 117 (declining to “rubber stamp” dismissal because although defendant did not appear
      to object, “the court is vested with the responsibility of protecting the interests of the public on
      whose behalf the criminal action is brought”).
      The Government “may, with leave of court, dismiss an indictment” under Rule 48(a) of the
      Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. “The principal object of the ‘leave of court’ requirement is
      apparently to protect a defendant against prosecutorial harassment, e.g., charging, dismissing, and
      recharging, when the Government moves to dismiss an indictment over the defendant’s objection.”
      Rinaldi v. United States, 434 U.S. 22, 30 n.15 (1977). “But the Rule has also been held to permit
      the court to deny a Government dismissal motion to which the defendant has consented if the
      motion is prompted by considerations clearly contrary to the public interest.” Id.; see also JM 9-
      2.050 (reflecting Department’s position that a “court may decline leave to dismiss if the manifest
      public interest requires it).
      “Rarely will the judiciary overrule the Executive Branch’s exercise of these prosecutorial
      decisions.” Blaszczak, 56 F.4th at 238. But courts, including the Second Circuit, will nonetheless
      inquire as to whether dismissal would be clearly contrary to the public interest. See, e.g., id. at
      238-42 (extended discussion of contrary to public interest standard and cases applying it); see also
      JM 9-2.050 (requiring “a written motion for leave to dismiss. . . explaining fully the reason for
      the request” to dismiss for cases of public interest as well as for cases involving bribery). Although
      it appears rare, at least one court in our district has rejected a dismissal under Rule 48(a) as contrary
      to the public interest, regardless of the defendant’s consent. See Nederlandsche Combinatie, 428
      F. Supp. At 116-17 (“After reviewing the entire record, the court has determined that a dismissal
      of the indictment against Mr. Massaut is not in the public interest. Therefore, the government’s
      motion to dismiss as to Mr. Massaut must be and is denied.”).
      The cases show some inconsistency concerning what courts should do if they find the
      standard for dismissal without prejudice not met. Some have instead dismissed indictments with
      prejudice. See, e.g., United States v. Madzarac, 678 F. Supp. 3d 43 (D.D.C. 2023). The better-
      reasoned view, however, is that courts considering a Rule 48(a) motion to dismiss without
      prejudice must either grant or deny the motion as made-they cannot grant the dismissal, but do
      so with prejudice, unless the Government consents. See United States v. B.G.G., 53 F.4th 1353,
      1369 (11th Cir. 2022) (“[R]ule 48(a) does not give the district court the discretion to rewrite the
      government’s dismissal motion from one without prejudice to one with prejudice.”); United States
      v. Flotron, 17 Cr. 00220 (JAM), 2018 WL 940554, at *5 (D. Conn. Feb. 19, 2018) (denying
      Government’s motion to dismiss without prejudice as contrary to public interest and requiring
      Government to proceed to trial); see also In re United States, 345 F.3d 450, 453 (7th Cir. 2003)
      (suggesting that courts might condition grant of Rule 48(a) motion on Government’s consent that
      prejudice attach).
      The assigned District Judge, the Honorable Dale E. Ho, appears likely to conduct a
      searching inquiry in this case. Although Judge Ho is a recent appointee with little judicial track
      record, he has resolved the motions in this case in lengthy written opinions that included research
      5 More

    • 113 Shares95 Views

      in Elections

      With New Decree, Trump Threatens Lawyers and Law Firms

      by

      President Trump broadened his campaign of retaliation against lawyers he dislikes with a new memorandum that threatens to use government power to punish any law firms that, in his view, unfairly challenge his administration.The memorandum directs the heads of the Justice and Homeland Security Departments to “seek sanctions against attorneys and law firms who engage in frivolous, unreasonable and vexatious litigation against the United States” or in matters that come before federal agencies.Mr. Trump issued the order late Friday night, after a tumultuous week for the American legal community in which one of the country’s premier firms, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison, struck a deal with the White House to spare the company from a punitive decree issued by Mr. Trump the previous week.Vanita Gupta, who as a civil rights lawyer and a former Justice Department official has both sued the government and defended it in court, said Mr. Trump’s memo “attacks the very foundations of our legal system by threatening and intimidating litigants who aim to hold our government accountable to the law and the Constitution.”In response to criticism of the memo, a White House spokeswoman, Taylor Rogers, said: “President Trump is delivering on his promise to ensure the judicial system is no longer weaponized against the American people. President Trump’s only retribution is success and historic achievements for the American people.”The president has long complained that Democratic-leaning lawyers and law firms have pursued what he calls “lawfare” in the form of investigations and lawsuits against him and his allies that he claims are motivated by politics. Since being sworn into office he has targeted three firms, but the new memo seems to threaten similar punishment for any lawyer or firm who raises his ire.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 163 Shares164 Views

      in Elections

      Judge to Consider Block on Trump’s Use of Wartime Law to Deport Venezuelans

      by

      A hearing has been set for Friday afternoon to debate whether a federal judge in Washington acted correctly when he temporarily stopped the Trump administration last weekend from summarily deporting scores of Venezuelan immigrants under a powerful but rarely invoked wartime statute.The hearing, scheduled for 2:30 p.m. in Federal District Court in Washington, could also include some discussion about the Justice Department’s repeated recalcitrance in responding to the judge’s demands. He has been requesting information about two deportation flights in particular, which officials say carried members of a Venezuelan street gang, Tren de Aragua, to El Salvador.The judge, James E. Boasberg, scolded the department in a stern order on Thursday for having “evaded its obligations” to provide him with data about the flights. He wants that information as he seeks to determine whether the Trump administration violated his initial instructions to turn the planes around after they left the United States on Saturday evening.Most of the courtroom conversation, however, is likely to concern Judge Boasberg’s underlying decision to stop the White House for now from using the wartime law, known as the Alien Enemies Act, to pursue its immigration agenda. The statute, passed in 1798, gives the government expansive powers during an invasion or a declared war to round up and summarily remove any subjects of a “hostile nation” over the age of 14 as “alien enemies.”Almost from the moment Judge Boasberg entered his provisional decision barring President Trump from using the law, the White House and the Justice Department have accused him of overstepping his authority by improperly inserting himself into the president’s ability to conduct foreign affairs.But Judge Boasberg imposed the order in the first place to give himself time to figure out whether Mr. Trump himself overstepped by stretching or even ignoring several of the statute’s provisions, which place checks on how and when it can be used.The administration has repeatedly claimed, for instance, that members of Tren de Aragua should be considered subjects of a hostile nation because they are closely aligned with the Venezuelan government. The White House, echoing a position that Mr. Trump pushed during his campaign, has also insisted that the arrival to the United States of dozens of members of the gang constitutes an invasion.But lawyers for some of the deported Venezuelans dispute those claims, saying that their clients are not gang members and should have the opportunity to prove it. The lawyers also say that while Tren de Aragua may be a dangerous criminal organization, which was recently designated as a terrorist organization, it is not a nation state.Moreover, they have argued that even if the members of the group have come to the United States en masse, that does not fit the traditional definition of an invasion. More