DOJ places attorney on leave after struggling in Maryland migrant case
Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images
(WASHINGTON) — The Justice Department has placed on indefinite paid leave the attorney who argued on behalf of the government on Friday in a lawsuit brought by a Maryland man who was deported to El Salvador in error, sources familiar with the matter told ABC News.
Sources said Erez Reuveni, the acting deputy director for the Office of Immigration Litigation, was told by officials at the DOJ that he was being placed on leave over a “failure to zealously advocate” for the government’s interests.
“At my direction, every Department of Justice attorney is required to zealously advocate on behalf of the United States,” Attorney General Pam Bondi said in a statement on Saturday. “Any attorney who fails to abide by this direction will face consequences.”
The government is seeking to appeal an order from the judge who presided over Friday’s hearing and ordered the department to facilitate the return of Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia by Monday.
In Friday’s hearing, Reuveni repeatedly struggled when pressed by Judge Paula Xinis of the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland for details surrounding Abrego Garcia’s deportation — and why the administration claimed it could not facilitate his return to the United States.
At one point in the hearing, Reuveni was asked by Xinis under what authority law enforcement officers seized Abrego Garcia.
Reuveni said he was frustrated that he did not have those answers.
“Your honor, my answer to a lot of these questions is going to be frustrating, and I’m also frustrated that I have no answers for you on a lot of these questions,” Reuveni said.
(WASHINGTON) — As President Donald Trump works at a breakneck speed to implement his second-term agenda , including wholesale firings and sweeping policy changes, he and his advisers assert his power over the executive branch is complete and can’t be questioned.
Still, his flurry of executive actions and orders spark a critical question: Does he have the power he claims to have?
Multiple court challenges are underway trying to stop his attempts to end birthright citizenship and temporarily freeze federal loans and grants.
More legal pushback will unfold amid Trump’s unprecedented purge of the executive workforce and reshaping of what Congress set up as independent agencies, the dismantling of which is largely being carried out by Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency.
Trump quickly fired 17 independent watchdogs and the director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Longtime Democratic Federal Election Commissioner Ellen Weintraub said Trump sent a letter removing her from the commission. His administration has directed all federal DEI staff be put on leave. The Justice Department fired more than a dozen of prosecutors who worked on Jan. 6 cases. Millions of employees were offered buyouts, with tens of thousands of people accepting them.
His administration has touted the moves as long-overdue cutting of waste in favor of a merit-based system. His critics slam them as a radical restructuring of the federal government aimed at consolidating presidential power — and placing loyalty to Trump over regulatory agency expertise designed to be insulated from political influence.
The ‘unitary executive theory’
Driving Trump’s strategy is a legal framework championed by conservatives, perhaps most notably by Trump’s newly-confirmed director of White House Office of Management and Budget, Russell Vought, an architect of Project 2025. (Democrats held an all-night protest of Vought’s nomination on the Senate floor Wednesday into Thursday, though his nomination was later approved by Republicans.)
The so-called “unitary executive theory” has various iterations but centers on the idea that the Constitution gives the president sole control over the executive branch of government.
Its advocates point to Article II, which reads in part: “The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.”
“I think that means he has the power to control subordinates throughout the executive branch, including in the independent agencies and how they exercise power. And as a corollary to that, he has the power to remove or fire subordinates in the executive branch,” said Steven Calabresi, a Northwestern University law professor and former Reagan administration official who co-authored a book on the unitary executive theory.
Trump in 2019 said: “I have an Article II, where I have the right to do whatever I want as president.”
Setting up Supreme Court test cases?
Some of Trump’s firings, especially those that seem to fly in the face of statutory protections for civil service workers from being removed without cause, are likely to result in lawsuits that put that theory in front of the courts.
“I think they are setting up test cases, and this Supreme Court is very likely to expand the theory and overrule other cases that are in tension with it,” said David Driesen, a law professor at Syracuse University.
In 2020, the Supreme Court found a provision from Congress limiting the president’s authority to remove the director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau violated the Constitution — a departure from precedent. The Trump White House has pointed to that ruling as justification for some of its firings.
Trump pushing limits on executive authority
But some say Trump is leaning on the theory to go even further, blatantly trying to take over powers the Constitution gives to other branches of government, namely Congress, violating the separation of powers and the concept of checks and balances.
“This is where the debate is: at what point does the kind of power that Trump wants and the way he exercises his power cross over from a constitutional vision about presidential power to an a-constitutional vision,” said Bob Bauer, a law professor at New York University and former White House counsel under President Barack Obama.
“The unitary executive theory has a history that isn’t nearly, in my judgment, what is claimed for it and now put into effect by Trump and his allies,” Bauer added.
Trump has sought to sidestep Congress and take control of federal spending, trying to freeze money already appropriated by lawmakers. His OMB pick, Vought, told senators during his confirmation hearing that the Trump administration would seek to impound funds it believes are being misspent.
Even bolder, Trump’s pledging to dismantle entire agencies. Turmoil is roiling USAID as its being taken over by the State Department and its staff reduced from 14,000 people to fewer than 300 staff, sources said. Trump is expected to move soon on his proposal to cripple the Department of Education just short of eliminating it.
Many of this will play out in the courts in the months ahead. But experts said, in the meantime, harm will be immediate and possibly felt for years to come.
“He’s going to do an enormous amount of damage that the courts can’t in all cases readily remediate,” Bauer said. “By the time he’s finished emptying out some of these agencies and in some cases closing them, putting all that back together again is going to be very challenging.”
“It will take years to rebuild some of these institutions. So, Trump and his team will accomplish much of what they want before the courts can fully and effectively respond. He will have created new facts on the ground.”
Democratic Sen. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., said on Sunday that he took issue with the Democratic response in the chamber to President Donald Trump’s wide-ranging address to Congress last week.
“I think the lack of a coordinated response in the State of the Union was a mistake, and frankly, it took the focus off of where it should have been, which is on the fact that the president spoke for an hour and 40 minutes and had nothing to say about what he would do to bring down costs for American families that were watching that lengthy address sitting at the kitchen table, hoping that he would offer something to help them afford a new home or pay the rent to afford health care or child care,” Schiff said on “This Week.”
Democratic lawmakers participated in various protests during Trump’s speech. Some female members of Congress wore hot pink to show resistance. Other Democratic members held signs that called out Elon Musk. Some decided to boycott the speech or leave early.
Schiff refuted Democratic strategist James Carville’s recent proposal in a New York Times op-ed that Democrats should “roll over and play dead” and wait for Republicans “to crumble beneath their own weight,” with the California senator instead saying that the right approach is focusing on “the economic well-being of Americans.”
“We need to have our own broad, bold agenda … to answer really the central question which is, if you’re working hard in America, can you still earn a good living?” said Schiff. “We need to be advancing policies and making the arguments about what we have to offer, not simply standing back and letting them collapse of our own corrupt weight. We need to effectively use litigation as we are. We need to effectively use communication to talk to new people in new ways as we are.”
Schiff also expressed frustration and disapproval of Trump’s whiplash tariff agenda.
Trump on Tuesday imposed a 25% tariff on goods coming from Canada or Mexico. The following day, he issued a one-month delay for auto parts. By Friday, Trump signed an executive order that extended the delay to all products under the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement, USMCA, which is a free trade agreement signed during Trump’s first term. Roughly half of Mexican imports fall under USMCA and about 38% of imports from Canada fall under the agreement.
Schiff said that Democrats have to start responding to Trump’s tariffs and economic policies more effectively.
“This is deeply destructive, what they’re doing,” he said. “We need to make that case to the American people, because they’re going to feel it. But, you know, taking our eye off the ball, I think, is very dangerous, and so let’s be focused on what matters most to Americans. Let’s point out all the destructive harms they’re doing with you know, the cutting of services, the slashing of Medicaid, and what that’s going to mean for increased health costs and less access for people.”
(WASHINGTON) — In President Donald Trump’s escalating battle with the judiciary, he and his Republican allies have zeroed in on a similar message.
No single judge, they argue, should be able to use an injunction to block the powers of the country’s elected chief executive.
“That’s a presidential job. That’s not for a local judge to be making that determination,” Trump said on Fox News earlier this week as he railed against a judge who issued a limited injunction to stop deportation flights of alleged Venezuelan gang members to other countries after Trump invoked the Alien Enemies Act of 1798.
White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt, peppered with questions after the administration did not turn the planes around, on Wednesday preemptively offered her own rebuke of judges who’ve recently ordered injunctions taking effect nationwide.
“The judges in this country are acting erroneously,” she said. “We have judges who are acting as partisan activists from the bench. They are trying to dictate policy from the president of the United States. They are trying to clearly slow walk this administration’s agenda, and it’s unacceptable.”
The White House argues that’s especially the case when it comes to immigration matters, foreign affairs, national security and the president exercising his constitutional powers as commander in chief.
Judges have, so far, temporarily blocked Trump’s efforts to ban transgender people from serving in the military, freeze federal funding and bring an end to birthright citizenship.
Supporters of nationwide injunctions say they serve as an essential check to potentially unlawful conduct and prevent widespread harm. Critics say they give too much authority to individual judges and incentivize plaintiffs to try to evade random assignment and file in jurisdictions with judges who may be sympathetic to their point of view.
In general, legal experts told ABC News an injunction is meant to preserve the status quo while judges consider the merits of the case. (Judges also issue temporary restraining orders — with similar impact — as short-term emergency measures to prevent irreparable harm until a hearing can be held.)
“Often the nationwide injunction, or universal injunction, is put in place right at the start of a litigation,” said Amanda Frost, a professor at the University of Virginia School of Law.
“All of these can be appealed, and they are,” Frost said. “It’s appealed to a three-judge court and then the Supreme Court after that. So, when people say one district court is controlling the law for the nation, well maybe for a few weeks. The system allows for appeals, and the Trump administration has appealed.”
Chief Justice John Roberts said the same in a rare statement after Trump attacked the federal judge in the deportation flight case as a “Radical Left Lunatic” and called for him to be impeached.
In fact, Trump was handed a win when an appeals court last week lifted an injunction on his executive orders seeking to end diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) programs in the federal government.
Nationwide injunctions are also not new, though scholars agree they’ve been used far more in recent decades.
“We saw them with Obama, we saw them with the first Trump administration, and saw them with Biden,” Frost said. “And now we’re seeing them even more with President Trump but they go in lockstep with the sweeping executive orders that seek to change and upend vast swaths of our legal structure.”
According to a study by the Harvard Law Review, President Barack Obama faced 12 injunctions, the Trump administration faced 64 and President Joe Biden 14 injunctions.
Both Democrats and Republicans have either urged the judiciary to rein in injunctions or celebrated their outcomes, depending on whether they align with their political goals.
In 2023, when a federal judge in Missouri issued an injunction limiting contact between the Biden administration and social media sites, then-candidate Trump called it a “historic ruling” and the judge “brilliant.” The U.S. Supreme Court eventually sided with the Biden administration on the issue.
Now, the Trump administration is appealing to the U.S. Supreme Court to curb injunctions after three different federal judges temporarily blocked the president’s birthright citizenship order, saying it likely violated the 14th Amendment.
“At a minimum, the Court should stay the injunctions to the extent they prohibit agencies from developing and issuing public guidance regarding the implementation of the Order. Only this Court’s intervention can prevent universal injunctions from becoming universally acceptable,” Acting Solicitor General Sarah Harris wrote in an application to the high court last week.
Neama Rahmani, a former federal prosecutor and president of West Coast Trial Lawyers, said he understands the “frustration” that can stem from nationwide injunctions but ultimately “judges are there to make sure that the government doesn’t violate the Constitution.”
“Trump is really taking a sledgehammer to everything government related,” he said. “These norms have been around for decades, so you have to allow some time for the courts, particularly the Supreme Court, to weigh in and say whether this is appropriate or not.”
The White House has said Trump will comply with the courts, but his intensifying rebukes of judges and rulings have raised the question: What happens if he doesn’t?
“That would completely undermine the integrity of our system,” Rahmani said.
