The lawyer, Erez Reuveni, answered most questions asked by Judge Paula Xinis with “I don’t know why” or “I haven’t been told why”. For example, when asked on what legal basis or authority the US government had deported the man in question, Abrego Garcia, the lawyer said he didn’t know.
“From the moment he was seized, it was unconstitutional,” Judge Xinis said during the hearing. “If there isn’t a document, a warrant, a statement of probable cause, then there is no basis to have seized him in the first place. That’s how I’m looking at it,” the judge said.
(Source is linked article)
The judge also questioned why the U.S. can’t get him back. Reuveni said that was the first question he asked when he was assigned to the case.
“I have not received today an answer that I find satisfactory,” he added.
Source: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/judge-orders-return-of-maryland-man-wrongly-deported-to-el-salvador-mega-prison
The judge also asked for evidence that the deported man, , was a member of the gang MS-13. But Reuveni couldn’t provide
Xinis noted in her opinion Sunday that the Justice Department presented “no evidence” that Abrego Garcia belongs to MS-13, effectively abandoning that position in her court.
Source: https://www.politico.com/news/2025/04/06/judge-order-return-man-el-salvador-00274526
Finally, the lawyer made one last request, to wait and let him ask his client - the US government - to try and return Abrego Garcia first. But look at how he frames his request:
“I would ask the court to give us, the defendants, one more chance to do this,” Reuveni said. “That’s my recommendation to my client, but so far that hasn’t happened.”
Basically telling the judge “I’ve already asked and got told no way but let me ask again” as a surefire way to make the judge ignore the request.
Source: https://www.politico.com/news/2025/04/05/doj-lawyer-leave-deportation-00274412
Admittedly, it’s not entirely clear yet that this was deliberate malicious compliance - but Erez Reuveni has nearly 15 years of experience and almost certainly would have known how to make a more compelling argument before the court, had he been so inclined.
Source: https://www.politico.com/news/2025/04/05/doj-lawyer-leave-deportation-00274412
In fact, the current US attorney general said this about the matter,
“He did not argue,” the attorney general complained, although Reuveni did argue that Xinis had no jurisdiction to consider the case. “He shouldn’t have taken the case. He shouldn’t have argued it, if that’s what he was going to do,” she said. “You have to vigorously argue on behalf of your client.”
Source: https://www.politico.com/news/2025/04/05/doj-lawyer-leave-deportation-00274412
He could have not taken the case, it seems. But he would have known that if he passed on it, someone else would argue it, and that someone might do a much better job in front of the court. So it’s probable that he took it upon himself to throw the case and save this man.
Alas, it seems his bosses saw through that. Even though he did argue that the court had no jurisdiction to consider the case, as he was likely ordered to do,
Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche sent Reuveni suspending him for failing to follow “follow a directive from your superiors” and “engaging in conduct prejudicial to your client.”
Source: https://www.politico.com/news/2025/04/05/doj-lawyer-leave-deportation-00274412
To me, that reads as if Blanche had figured out that Reuveni had complied with orders, but only maliciously so, and thus treated it as a case of non-compliance. (In truth, malicious compliance here hurt the government’s case worse than actual non-compliance - refusing to take the case at all - would have.)
I’m not 100% sure I’m right - after all Erez Reuveni is a professional lawyer and thus knows what to say and not say in public to protect himself - but if I am right, then I’d consider Erez Reuveni a true USian hero.
Is “quiet quitting” now malicious compliance? Because it sure sounds like this dude did his job properly… One of the most important bits being he didn’t antagonize the judge for no reason
This guy is representing a government department, and has been told nothing. What is he supposed to do, endlessly delay and make up shit to fall on the sword for a client that won’t take this seriously?
What is he supposed to do, endlessly delay and make up shit to fall on the sword for a client that won’t take this seriously?
Yes. Precisely. He was supposed to lie and bluster like Alina Habba, and then suffer for it later and who cares about that part. When you’re a servant of a despotic regime, you’re “supposed to” sacrifice yourself for the cause, because the people who are creating “supposed to” don’t give a shit about you (or about anyone else). That is why it is important to stop caring about “supposed to” as early as possible.
Tim Snyder wrote about this: No Soviet regime could have happened without judges and lawyers “doing their jobs” at the show trials. Once the people making the rules are unequivocally doing evil, you need to re-analyze whether your “following the rules” is justified and if you’re helping create something monstrous.
It looks more like he was doing the best he could to behave ethically. He can’t lie to the judge so he didn’t. There’s not really anything else he could have done without violating his duty to the court.
it’s hard to present anything valid and based in reality when you have absolutely nothing to begin with.
Bosses are cool and all but a judge can put you in a jail for acting a fool.
It looks more like he was doing the best he could to behave ethically.
Agreed, 100%
He can’t lie to the judge so he didn’t.
Again, in 100% agreement.
There’s not really anything else he could have done without violating his duty to the court.
I addressed this in my comments about the case. So apparently the US attorney general said this,
“He shouldn’t have taken the case. He shouldn’t have argued it, if that’s what he was going to do,” she said.
Now, it wasn’t clear to me if a DOJ lawyer can avoid taking on a case like this, as Bondi seems to be saying. But Google’s AI did report this to me, below.
If Google’s AI is accurate or Bondi is correct, then Reuveni could have passed on the pass and let someone else argue it. And if every legit ethical lawyer in the DOJ was allowed to pass on the case, it’d end up in the lap of some newly appointed MAGA lawyer guy who might have struck lightning and someone convinced the judge that reversing the deportation is not possible - or at least gotten additional delays in, prolonging Abrego Garcia’s suffering.
So my case is that he didn’t do the minimum (which was the pass on the case) but he took it and then did the minimum on the case, ensuring a victory for the other side.
From Google’s AI:
Yes, a lawyer within the Department of Justice (DOJ) can pass on a case, but it’s typically done through a formal process and with the approval of superiors, not simply by choosing to ignore it.
Here’s a more detailed explanation:
DOJ Lawyers are Assigned Cases:
DOJ lawyers, like other government lawyers, are assigned cases by their superiors or within the legal team they are part of.
Reasons for Passing on a Case:
There are several reasons why a DOJ lawyer might pass on a case, including:
Conflict of Interest: If a lawyer has a conflict of interest, they may need to be removed from the case.
Lack of Expertise: A lawyer might not have the specific expertise or experience necessary to handle a particular case.
Overload: A lawyer might be overloaded with other cases and unable to take on additional work.
Case Strategy: A lawyer might believe that the case is not worth pursuing, or that the best course of action is to pass it on to another lawyer or unit within the DOJ.
Formal Process:
Passing on a case is not something a lawyer can do unilaterally. They must follow a formal process to request to be removed from a case, which usually involves:
Consulting with Superiors: The lawyer must first discuss the reasons for wanting to pass on the case with their supervisor or other relevant authority.
Documentation: The reasons for passing on the case should be documented.
Approval: The request to pass on the case must be approved by the appropriate authority.
Consequences of Passing on a Case:
There can be consequences for a lawyer who passes on a case, including:
Loss of Trust: If a lawyer passes on a case without a valid reason, it could damage their reputation and the trust of their superiors.
Negative Impact on the Case: If the case is important, passing it on could have a negative impact on the outcome.
Alternative to Passing on a Case:
Instead of passing on a case, a lawyer might seek assistance from other lawyers or units within the DOJ, or they may request additional resources to handle the case.
Generative AI is experimental. For legal advice, consult a professional.
Uhm yeah the Trump admin is basically saying ignore all Rules of Professional Conduct & risk being charged with contempt, else we will punish you. I’m of the belief that most attorneys don’t have souls, so I don’t think it’ll be hard to find others claiming they could have done better for the right price, but knowing Trump this one was prob severely underpaid cause of his last name, where it didn’t make sense for him to risk losing his career.
He actually did them a favor by playing dumb instead of saying… “Oh yeah, my client intentionally ignored you & has documents showing they knew they were breaking the law.”
