The fatal shootings of Renee Good and Alex Pretti highlighted for the public how often the federal government misrepresents key details about its immigration enforcement activities. What’s less commonly understood is that the administration also carries these types of misrepresentations into judicial proceedings. In fact, immigration-related cases account for most of the deception and noncompliance by the Trump administration in court.
A compilation compiled by New York University law professor Ryan Goodman and his associates at Just Security shows that immigration-related matters were at stake in 24 of 42 instances (57 percent) in which judges found that officials had misled the courts. Immigration-related cases also topped Just Security’s list of instances where judges have found noncompliance with their orders: 19 of the 31 instances were immigration-related.
My colleague Walter Olson, who has commented on the same Just Security analysis, has argued: “It all cries out for the [Supreme] Court as a whole to reevaluate whether the current executive has behaved with such rectitude as to continue to merit the old presumption of regularity.”
As Goodman and coauthors at Just Security describe it, the presumption of regularity “instructs courts to presume, unless there is clear evidence to the contrary, that executive officials have ‘properly discharged their official duties’ and that government agencies have acted with procedural regularity and with bona fide, non-pretextual reasons.” This presumption has always given the government more practical leeway to engage in misconduct and bad faith that other litigants could not. Despite this presumption, however, courts are still finding egregious misconduct by this administration—particularly in immigration-related matters.
The immigration cases—which include conclusions by numerous judges appointed by presidents of both parties—include striking rhetoric quoted in part in the long list below. One judge condemned the “willful disregard” of orders that are defied “willfully and gleefully”; another repudiated the “deliberate evasion” of the administration’s obligations to the court; another merely saw “zero effort to comply”; others puzzled over “shoddy affidavits and contradictory testimony” and why officials were “putting words in people’s mouths” or making claims “untethered to the facts.” Some bluntly determined to put aside the administration’s “nakedly misleading characterizations” and “outright lying.”
The stakes in these proceedings include everything from the release of a single individual from detention to a state losing all federal transportation funds to hundreds of immigrants being deported to a foreign prison without due process.
The Tip of the ICEberg
These are just the cases from January 2025 through November 2025. As Goodman and coauthors note, the Supreme Court also called out the first Trump administration for lying in Department of Commerce v. Trump for misrepresenting its reasons for adopting the citizenship question on the Census, stating “we cannot ignore the disconnect between the decision made and the explanation given.” Moreover, there were many new instances of deception and defiance in court since November of last year. Indeed, US District Judge Patrick Schiltz recently said that there have been “dozens of court orders with which respondents have failed to comply in recent weeks.”
Just Security failed to include one particular case that is arguably as compelling as those on its list. In the case of J.G.G. v. Trump, the Supreme Court ordered on April 7, 2025, that individuals whom the government was attempting to remove under the Alien Enemies Act must “receive notice after the date of this order that they are subject to removal under the Act. The notice must be afforded within a reasonable time and in such a manner as will allow them to actually seek habeas relief.”
On April 17, 2025, the government issued notices of removal giving the subjects just 24 hours to seek relief, in English, and without any instructions about how to do so. As buses rolled toward the airport, the Supreme Court intervened to block the removals. On May 9, the Supreme Court had the chance to explain the blatant disregard of its order: “Under these circumstances, notice roughly 24 hours before removal, devoid of information about how to exercise due process rights to contest that removal, surely does not pass muster.”
This flagrant act of defiance occurred after the Supreme Court had found that the original set of removals was carried out unlawfully and in defiance of the district court’s order barring those removals, an instance of noncompliance that is included on the list.
There were also many clear violations of orders that no judge ultimately addressed, such as the illegal profiling raids blocked in Perdomo v. Noem. In order to further those raids in violation of the court order, the Justice Department actually fired Michele Beckwith, the acting US attorney in the Eastern District of California, who was overseeing and requiring compliance with the order.
She was not the only US attorney lost to the government’s attempt to evade judicial review. Acting deputy director in the Office of Immigration Litigation, Erez Reuveni, has said he was also fired for refusing to lie and accurately admitting that Kilmar Abrego Garcia was removed in error to El Salvador. He said that attorneys are being told to make misleading and false statements in courts by their superiors at the Justice Department. Similarly, the Chief of the Criminal Division at the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Middle District of Tennessee, Ben Schader, quit rather than file politically motivated charges against Abrego Garcia.
According to Reuveni, after the president secretly invoked the Alien Enemies Act and covertly began loading Venezuelans onto planes to send them to El Salvador’s terrorism prison, Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General Emil Bove—the third in command at the Justice Department—told attorneys how they would handle court challenges:
“Bove emphasized, those planes need to take off, no matter what. Then after a pause, he also told all in attendance, and if some court should issue an order preventing that, we may have to consider telling that court, ‘f*** you.’”
Justice Department Attorney Drew Ensign, soon after, told a court that he did not know if planes would be leaving, even though Reuveni had said that he was in the same meeting as him, and the judge gave him time to confirm. “We really did tell the court, screw you,” said Reuveni.
There have also been dozens of cases of charges filed against ICE protesters and ICE observers based on lies that have ultimately resulted in acquittals or dismissals of charges that are largely not represented on this list. As my colleague Walter Olson notes, these lies can have significant effects even outside of the criminal case. In a dissent in a case involving the deployment of the National Guard to support ICE, Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito described an incident where:
a federal vehicle carrying Border Patrol agents was boxed in on a public road by 10 civilian vehicles, and 2 of those vehicles rammed the Government vehicle. As the agents exited their vehicle, one of the civilian vehicles was driven directly at an agent, forcing the agent to fire in self-defense.
But this event never happened. It was a story invented by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to justify the shooting after the fact. There was one civilian car, not ten. The government’s vehicles were never boxed in, and the government’s criminal case against the preschool teacher driver was dismissed after video evidence showed it was DHS that rammed her vehicle and opened fire without provocation.
Honesty with Courts Matters
Immigration restrictionists had pushed the unfounded claim that people who cared about the rights of noncitizens to live and work peacefully in this country had no “respect for the rule of law.” The response that the best way to make the law respected is to make it respectable failed to satisfy them. Now, however, it is clear that those carrying out the most severe immigration restrictions in a century cared little for the rule of law anyway.
The Just Security analysis implies that the Justice Department under President Trump and Attorney General Pamela Bondi happily conspires to ignore court orders, but they are most willing to do so when it would advance President Trump’s deportation agenda. The administration has gone far down the road to rejecting the legitimacy of the courts. The White House Deputy Chief of Staff has called court orders limiting the president’s authority a “judicial coup” and said, “unelected communist judges are now trying to rule over us all.”
Americans depend on the courts to vindicate their rights when the government violates the law or the Constitution. When the executive branch misleads courts about its conduct or ignores their orders, courts cannot fulfill their role in limiting government, threatening the rights of everyone in the United States. Hopefully, this flurry of deception causes courts to scrutinize the government’s assertions more thoroughly than they have in the past.
Cases Involving Noncompliance
In J.G.G. v. Trump, April 16, 2025, regarding Venezuelans sent to El Salvador:
On the evening of Saturday, March 15, 2025, this Court issued a written Temporary Restraining Order barring the Government from transferring certain individuals into foreign custody pursuant to the Alien Enemies Act. At the time the Order issued, those individuals were on planes being flown overseas, having been spirited out of the United States by the Government before they could vindicate their due-process rights by contesting their removability in a federal court, as the law requires. Trump v. J.G.G., 2025 WL 1024097, at *2 (U.S. Apr. 7, 2025) (per curiam). Rather than comply with the Court’s Order, the Government continued the hurried removal operation. Early on Sunday morning — hours after the Order issued — it transferred two planeloads of passengers protected by the TRO into a Salvadoran mega-prison.
As this Opinion will detail, the Court ultimately determines that the Government’s actions on that day demonstrate a willful disregard for its Order, sufficient for the Court to conclude that probable cause exists to find the Government in criminal contempt…. [B]oasts by Defendants intimated that they had defied the Court’s Order deliberately and gleefully. The Secretary of State, for instance, retweeted a post in which, above a news headline noting this Court’s Order to return the flights to the United States, the President of El Salvador wrote: “Oopsie … Too late 😂😂.” …what followed in the ensuing days was increasing obstructionism on the part of the Government as it refused to answer basic questions about what had happened.
In Abrego Garcia v. Noem, 8:25-cv-00951 (D. Md.), April 11, 2025, regarding the Supreme Court’s order to bring back wrongfully deported Salvadoran immigrant Kilmar Abrego Garcia:
For the reasons discussed during today’s status conference, the Court finds that the Defendants have failed to comply with this Court’s Order… As a result, counsel could not confirm, and thus did not advance any evidence, that Defendants had done anything to facilitate Abrego Garcia’s return. This remained Defendants’ position even after this Court reminded them that the Supreme Court of the United States expressly affirmed this Court’s authority to require the Government “facilitate” Abrego Garcia’s return. See Noem v. Abrego Garcia, 25A949, 604 U.S. ___ (2025), Slip Op. at 2.
Again, in Abrego Garcia v. Noem, 8:25-cv-00951 (D. Md.), April 15, 2025, following a renewed order for information on efforts to return Abrego Garcia:
Defendants therefore remain obligated, at a minimum, to take the steps available to them toward aiding, assisting, or making easier Abrego Garcia’s release from custody in El Salvador and resuming his status quo ante. But the record reflects that Defendants have done nothing at all.… Plaintiffs’ request for expedited discovery focuses on securing compliance with this Court’s amended order at ECF No. 51 and other related directives, and in the face of ongoing refusal to comply, to assist the Court in determining whether contempt proceedings are warranted.
Again, in Abrego Garcia v. Noem, 8:25-cv-00951 (D. Md.), April 17, 2025, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals stated:
Thus, the government’s argument that all it must do is “remove any domestic barriers to [Abrego Garcia’s] return,” Mot. for Stay at 2, is not well taken in light of the Supreme Court’s command that the government facilitate Abrego Garcia’s release from custody in El Salvador . “Facilitation” does not permit the admittedly erroneous deportation of an individual to the one country’s prisons that the withholding order forbids and, further, to do so in disregard of a court order that the government not so subtly spurns. “Facilitation” does not sanction the abrogation of habeas corpus through the transfer of custody to foreign detention centers in the manner attempted here. Allowing all this would “facilitate” foreign detention more than it would domestic return. It would reduce the rule of law to lawlessness and tarnish the very values for which Americans of diverse views and persuasions have always stood
Again, in Abrego Garcia v. Noem, 8:25-cv-00951 (D. Md.), April 22, 2025, following yet another order for discovery in the case:
Defendants’ answer to Interrogatory No. 5, in which they name exactly two individuals who “have been or will be involved in any of the actions responsive to Interrogatories 1–4 or in ordering or authorizing Abrego Garcia’s removal to El Salvador, his initial placement in CECOT or his continued confinement in CECOT,” reflects a deliberate evasion of their fundamental discovery obligations. … Defendants have failed to respond in good faith, and their refusal to do so can only be viewed as willful and intentional noncompliance.
Again, in Abrego Garcia v. Noem, 8:25-cv-00951 (D. Md.), May 13, 2025, following an order for the privilege log (a document recording which records were withheld because of a claim of executive privilege):
Evidently missing from the Defendants’ filing is the privilege log that this Court ordered to be produced. See ECF No. 115 (“On the same date, Defendants shall provide the privilege log discussed in ECF No. 112 to the Court.”). Accordingly, Defendants are ordered to correct this deficiency and file the privilege log by 3:00 PM today. Failure to file the privilege log or otherwise respond will be construed as an intentional refusal to comply with this Court’s orders.
In D.V.D. v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, 1:25-cv-10676 (D. Mass.), May 23, 2025, regarding the wrongful deportation of a Guatemalan to Mexico:
The original version of the Errata filing included an exhibit that publicly revealed O.C.G.’s full name and other identifying information, see Dkt. 105 at 8, contrary to this Court’s prior order concerning the use of pseudonyms, Dkt. 13.
In D.V.D. v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, 1:25-cv-10676 (D. Mass.), May 26, 2025, regarding removals of immigrants to third countries where they had no citizenship:
By racing to get six class members onto a plane to unstable South Sudan, clearly in breach of the law and this Court’s order, Defendants gave this Court no choice but to find that they were in violation of the Preliminary Injunction. Twice, well-founded allegations of non-compliance or imminent non-compliance led this Court to amend or clarify the Preliminary Injunction. See Dkts. 86, 91. Neither of those changed the substance of the Preliminary Injunction, which continued to require Defendants to give written notice of the third-country removal and a meaningful opportunity to make a CAT claim.
In Melgar-Salmeron v. Bondi, 23–7792 (2d Cir.), June 24, 2025, regarding another immigrant wrongfully deported in violation of a court order, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals stated:
As the Government recognizes in its filings, the removal was improper because it contradicted the Government’s assurance to the Court that it would forbear from removing Petitioner, which this Court relied upon in resolving the stay motion. It was also improper because it violated this Court’s order staying Petitioner’s removal from the United States during the pendency of this matter before this Court.
In J.O.P. v. DHS, 8:19-cv-01944-SA (D.Md.), May 28, 2025, regarding a wrongfully deported unaccompanied child to El Salvador:
This Court finds that Defendants utterly disregarded this Court’s May 20, 2025 Order. That Order directed Defendants to “provide a status report on the steps they have taken to facilitate the return of Cristian to the United States…on or before 5:00 PM ET on Tuesday, May 27, 2025” … Defendants’ untimely response is the functional equivalent of, “We haven’t done anything and don’t intend to.” Defendants’ filing disregarded the deadline and the substantive requests in this Court’s May 20, 2025 Order. …The remainder of the “status update” shows zero effort to comply with this Court’s April 23, 2025 Order, ECF 254, that Defendants “facilitate” Cristian’s return to the United States.
In Ms. L. v. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, 3:18-cv-00428 (S.D. Cal.), July 24, 2025, regarding the enforcement of a settlement agreement providing legal assistance to certain immigrants:
On June 10, 2025, this Court found Defendants in breach of the parties’ Settlement Agreement in this case, specifically, the sections regarding the provision of legal services to Class Members. (See ECF No. 795.) To remedy that breach, the Court ordered Defendants to reinstate their Legal Access Services for Reunified Families (“LASRF”) task order with Acacia so it could provide the necessary legal services, and set a status conference for June 27, 2025. (Id. at 17–19.) Defendants did not comply with the Court’s order to reinstate the task order with Acacia.
In National TPS Alliance v. Noem, 3:25-cv-01766 (N.D. Cal.), June 5, 2025, regarding a discovery order in a case over the termination of Temporary Protected Status, which was already ignored:
The government has failed to comply with the Court’s order and has not given a specific date by which it will comply. The Court orders the government to provide the declaration previously ordered by today, June 5, 2025.
In OCA – Asian Pacific American Advocates v. Rubio, 1:25-cv-00287, July 14, 2025, regarding the failure to submit filings related to the birthright citizenship executive order:
On this record, including Defendants’ continuing inexplicable failure to comply with the Court’s 6 Standing Order, Defendants have not shown good cause for a further extension.
In State of Oregon v. Trump, 3:25-cv-01756 (D. Or.), November 7, 2025, regarding the use of National Guard to deal with anti-ICE protesters in Portland:
this Court is deeply troubled by Defendants’ continued deployment of Oregon National Guardsmen at the Portland ICE facility in violation of the First TRO. In the seven hours that Defendants took to ‘convey the message’ of the First TRO ‘to people on the ground,’ Defendants simultaneously ‘convey[ed] the message’ to the U.S. Army Northern Command to send 200 of the federalized California National Guard personnel in Los Angeles to Portland. … In other words, Defendants had time to order and coordinate the transport of federalized California National Guardsmen from Los Angeles to Portland but needed more time to communicate with the Oregon National Guardsmen at the Portland ICE facility. This Court has not issued any finding of contempt based on Defendants’ apparent violation of the First TRO. However, this Court expects Defendants will provide further explanation when ordered to do so by this Court in the future, and this court retains jurisdiction over the issue.
In Castanon Nava v. Department of Homeland Security, 1:18-cv-03757 (N.D. Ill.), November 13, regarding arrests without warrants in violation of a consent decree:
To begin, in the parties’ joint status reports filed on November 7, 2025, the parties report that they have agreed—after an examination of the pertinent arrest records—that 46 class members were arrested in violation of the terms of the Consent Decree and are thus entitled to relief under the Decree. (Dckt. #244 at 3–4). However, the majority of these class members have already been removed from the United States, either involuntarily or voluntarily… plaintiffs assert that a large number of class members (including many of the 615 in question) were arrested in violation of the terms of the Consent Decree. Given the number of instances where the parties have agreed that the rights of class members were violated, it stands to reason that a significant number of additional violations will be uncovered as plaintiffs receive and analyze the arrest records of the remaining arrestees.
In State of Illinois v. Federal Emergency Management Agency, 1:25-cv-00206 (D.R.I.), October 14, 2025, regarding an injunction prohibiting the conditioning of emergency grants to states based on their commitment to assist ICE:
Despite the Court’s order, Defendants have now inserted the contested conditions into Plaintiff States’ award letters for DHS grants, along with statements promising that “[i]f the injunction is stayed, vacated, or extinguished, the [contested conditions] will immediately become effective.” … In effect, Defendants have done precisely what the Memorandum and Order forbids, which is requiring Plaintiff States to agree to assist in federal immigration enforcement or else forgo the award of DHS grants. The fig leaf conditional nature of the requirement makes little difference. No matter how confident Defendants may be of their chances on appeal, at present, the contested conditions are unlawful. Plaintiff States therefore have a right to accept the awards without regard to the contested conditions. Defendants’ new condition is not a good faith effort to comply with the order; it is a ham-handed attempt to bully the states into making promises they have no obligation to make at the risk of losing critical disaster and other funding already appropriated by Congress.
In Chicago Headline Club v. Noem, 1:25-cv-12173 (N.D. Ill.), November 20, regarding a temporary restraining orderprohibiting the indiscriminate use of force, tear gas, rubber bullets, and other violence against protesters:
Gregory Bovino, the Chief Border Patrol Agent of CBP’s El Centro Sector… admitted in his deposition that he lied multiple times about the events that occurred in Little Village that prompted him to throw tear gas at protesters. … Defendants have engaged in an officially sanctioned common practice of violating the First and Fourth Amendment rights of protesters, journalists, and religious practitioners. …Their risk of future injury is not speculative, given the ongoing, sustained pattern of conduct that they have documented over the previous two months, even after the Court entered a TRO, with no sign of stopping.
In National TPS Alliance v. Noem, 3:25-cv-05687 (N.D. Cal.), October 16, 2025, regarding orders for disclosure of documents relating to the termination of Temporary Protected Status:
Now before the Court is the parties’ dispute regarding whether Defendants properly withheld or redacted documents based on the attorney-client privilege and/or the deliberate process privilege. This is not the first time the Undersigned has reviewed documents in camera to address the parties’ disputes over Defendants’ claimed privileges. Unfortunately, Defendants do not seem to have considered the Undersigned’s prior Orders in this case and in National TPS Alliance v. Noem, No. 25-cv-01766-EMC. For example, Defendants continue to claim documents dated after Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) Secretary Kristi Noem’s decisions to deprive Temporary Protected Status (“TPS”) holders from Honduras, Nepal, and Nicaragua were made or that do not contain any opinions, recommendations, or advice. In the future, Defendants are admonished to consider the Undersigned’s prior rulings. …In light of the Undersigned’s previous orders requiring the disclosure of similar materials, Defendants failure to make this showing is particularly glaring.
In United States v. Abrego Garcia, 3:25-cr-00115 (M.D. Tenn.), October 27, 2025, regarding the administration’s continued public statements that would prejudice a jury pool despite an order barring that conduct:
It does not appear [government] agency employees have been notified by counsel of record about those employees’ obligation to adhere to the Local Rule [requiring officials to refrain from making prejudicial statements]. Mr. McGuire and Mr. Harley side-stepped the Court’s Order to report what they had done to comply with Local Rule 2.01(a)(4).
In Pedro Vasquez Perdomo v. Noem, 2:25-cv-05605 (C.D. Cal.), November 13, regarding the temporary restraining order barring DHS from blocking access to attorneys:
although Access/Detention Plaintiffs confirm the TRO Order has improved matters by allowing for some in-person visitation, the current record shows Defendants still are not fully in compliance with the TRO Order… The Court has examined all of the new evidence presented by both sides and decides once again that the federal government is partially blocking access to lawyers. Lawyer visiting hours have been closed down repeatedly without letting lawyers know—even though this Court ordered that the government should let the lawyers know. Officers insist on keeping the door open when lawyers are trying to have private conversations with their clients—even though this means the conversations are no longer private. Officers sometimes will not let lawyers meet with people who want to work with lawyers—even though they are not supposed to. Individuals in B‑18 do not get the free, confidential phone calls with their lawyers that even the government says they should have. And sometimes, individuals are moved from B‑18 to another location which does not allow lawyer visits at all. And, once again, the Court is ordering the federal government to stop—this time for the rest of this lawsuit.
In Barco Mercado v. Noem, 1:25-cv-06568 (S.D.N.Y.), regarding the conditions of ICE detainees (not included in Just Security’s list of failure to comply but on its list of misrepresentations, but added here as it is relevant):
[ICE assistant field office director] Ms. Zanello’s declarations in substantial measure avoided the thrust of plaintiff’s factual showing and offered unpersuasive statistics that concealed more than they disclosed despite the availability to defendants of much more illuminating data. Moreover, the record casts doubt on defendants’ compliance with the TRO [Note 220: Plaintiff has submitted declarations which indicate that inhumane conditions persist despite the Court’s TRO. A detainee in custody at 26 Fed from August 12 through August 14 reports that he received food only once or twice per day; he was not furnished with a sleeping mat or clean clothing; he observed detainees wait a day to receive medical care; he was not provided sufficient toilet paper or anything to clean his teeth; and he did not have access to regular, temporally unrestricted calls.]. The response to the motions thus gives no confidence that the defendants are seriously interested in making a full disclosure of conditions in the 26 Fed Hold Rooms, much less materially improving those conditions anytime soon except, perhaps, to the extent they are compelled by law.
Misrepresentations and Doubts about the Administration’s Honesty
In J.G.G. v. Trump, 1:25-cv-00766 (D.D.C.), April 16, 2025, regarding removal flights under the Alien Enemies Act to El Salvador:
It asked the Government point blank whether there were any “removals under this Proclamation planned … in the next 24 or 48 hours.” Id. Government counsel said that he did not know, but that he could “investigate” and “report … back.” Id. …the Court adjourned the hearing until 6:00 p.m. and directed Government counsel to find out whether the Government was in the process of removing people under the Proclamation. Id. at 13–15…. during the short window that the Court was adjourned, two removal flights took off from Harlingen — one around 5:25 p.m. and the other at about 5:45 p.m…. Those later-discovered flight movements, however, were obscured from the Court when the hearing resumed shortly after 6:00 p.m. because the Government surprisingly represented that it still had no flight details to share…. When pressed, Government counsel stated that the “operational details” he had learned during the recess “raised potential national security issues,” so they could not be shared while the public and press listened to the hearing through a call-in line. See Mar. 15 Hrg. Tr. at 15. He suggested, however, that the Government could “provide [the Court] additional details in an in camera” setting. Id. So the Court arranged to do just that. It disconnected the public line so that only counsel for the parties were present and asked Government counsel to report. Id. at 15–16. Except that he did not: he clarified only that the “additional details” he had just mentioned could eventually be provided…
In J.G.G. v. Trump, 1:25-cv-00766 (D.D.C.), December 22, 2025 (using an updated citation), regarding the government’s claim in a brief that Venezuelans sent to El Salvador “were not detained on the behest of United States, nor was their ongoing detention because of the United States”:
once Plaintiffs had been removed to El Salvador, did the United States direct that country’s choice to imprison them? Here, the facts suggest that this was the case Before removing Plaintiffs from this country, the United States arranged for El Salvador to detain them in exchange for money… In a response to the United Nations Working Group, El Salvador itself indicated that it was working at the behest of the United States: it … stated that “the jurisdiction and legal responsibility for these persons lie exclusively with the competent foreign authorities .…” …In the months following the Court’s June 4 Opinion, Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem and her office have made multiple public statements casting CECOT as an extension of U.S. detention facilities.
In Abrego Garcia v. Noem, 25–1345 (4th Cir.), April 7, 2025, regarding the wrongful deportation of Salvadoran immigrant Kilmar Abrego Garcia in violation of a grant of withholding of removal:
In response to the candid responses by the Government attorney to the district court’s inquiry, that attorney has been put on administrative leave, ostensibly for lack of ‘zealous[] advocacy.’ … But, the duty of zealous representation is tempered by the duty of candor to the court, among other ethical obligations, and the duty to uphold the rule of law, particularly on the part of a Government attorney.
In D.V.D. v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, 1:25-cv-10676 (D. Mass.), May 23, 2025, regarding the wrongful deportation of a Guatemalan to Mexico:
Until one week ago, Defendants maintained that O.C.G. verbally stated that he was not afraid of being sent to Mexico, based on data entries made by immigration officers. See Dkt. 31 at 4. However, after speaking with those officers, Defendants no longer make that claim.… Finally, it must be said that, while mistakes obviously happen, the events leading up to this decision are troubling. The Court was given false information, upon which it relied, twice, to the detriment of a party at risk of serious and irreparable harm. Defendants then exacerbated that risk by placing O.C.G.’s full name on the public docket, in violation of this Court’s Order, Dkt. 13.1 See Dkt. 105 at 8. The Court has ordered discovery, including depositions of the individuals involved in the false declaration and underlying data entries, to better understand how this happened.
In Sanchez Puentes v. Charles, 1:25-cv-00509 (E.D. Va.), March 28, 2025, regarding the illegal detention of two Venezuelans with Temporary Protected Status based on the claim that they are members of Tren de Aragua:
This is a terrible, terrible affidavit. If this were before me in a criminal case and you were asking to get a warrant issue on this, I’d throw you out of my chambers. No agent should do this type of editorializing, not when people’s liberty is at stake. I expect more from the government than this kind of very shoddy work. This is assumptions and putting words in people’s mouths. … I was shocked when I saw it.
In Sanchez Puentes v. Garite, 3:25-cv-00127 (W.D. Tex.), April 21, 2025, regarding the illegal detention of two Venezuelans with Temporary Protected Status:
Respondents declare, without providing this Court with a single piece of meaningful evidence, that ‘Petitioners are members of Tren de Aragua.’ … Of great concern to this Court is that Respondents contradict themselves throughout the entire record. … [T]he April 23, 2025 Habeas Corpus hearing in this Court, Respondents and the Government based the entirety of their case on multiple levels of hearsay, hidden within declarations of declarants who have no personal knowledge about the facts they are attesting to. … What is astonishing is that these declarants cannot even so much as identify what government official did receive the alleged information directly. Respondents ask this Court to accept their claims, going off of nearly nothing, to substantiate their mammoth claims. … The Court would not accept this evidence even in a case where only nominal damages were at stake, let alone what is at stake here.
Beyond these shoddy affidavits and contradictory testimony, Respondents haven’t provided ‘membership’ at all as it relates to Petitioner Sanchez Garcia … This Court takes clear offense to Respondents wasting judicial resources to admit to the Court it has no evidence, yet seek to have this Court determine Petitioner Sanchez Puentes is ‘guilty by association.’ This Court found no need to even allow closing arguments as to Petitioner Sanchez Puentes at the April 23, 2025 Habeas Corpus Hearing. … It is this Court’s finding that Respondents’ Response and testimony was replete with conclusions, declarations, and accusations, completely and wholly unsubstantiated by anything meaningful in the record.
In Abrego Garcia v. Noem, 8:25-cv-00951 (D. Md.), regarding Salvadoran immigrant’s continued detention:
[C]ounsel’s proffers seem patently incredible… [The court] began by directing Defendants to produce the ICE detainer currently in place, hoping at last to ascertain the basis upon which ICE sought to hold him in Tennessee. But the detainer raised more questions than it answered. The detainer stated simply that probable cause exists to remove Abrego Garcia, “based on … the pendency of ongoing removal proceedings.” Yet by Defendants’ own admission, there are no ongoing removal proceedings. … Thus, the ICE detainer seemed thin cover for Defendants to take Abrego Garcia into custody in Tennessee and next transfer him to any ICE facility in the United States. (See also: The judge expressed frequent frustrations with the Trump administration, saying it had presented a “totally inconsistent” case to keep the Maryland man in immigration detention.)
In League of United Latin American Citizens v. Executive Office of The President, 1:25-cv-00946 (D.D.C.), August 24, 2025, regarding whether the administration had already attempted to implement an executive order mandating voter identification in elections:
Defendants stressed that such implementation “may never occur.” Id. at 15 (original emphasis).… Unfortunately, three days before Defendants hitched their argument to this factual contention, on April 11, … the EAC’s Executive Director Brianna Schletz sent a letter on EAC letterhead to the chief election officials of each State “seeking consultation on development of” the Federal Form.… In short, the letter reveals that—contrary to Defendants’ representations to the Court—the EAC has, in fact, already begun to implement Section 2(a).29… . The contradiction between Defendants’ factual representations and the facts on the ground is particularly striking because Executive Director Schletz authored a declaration supporting Defendants’ Oppositions that was filed three days after she sent the letter to the States. … When pressed, counsel for Defendants asserted that he ‘had no knowledge of the letter.’
In J.O.P. v. Dep’t of Homeland Security, 8:19-cv-01944 (4th Cir.), May 19, 2025, regarding an unaccompanied immigrant child illegally deported to El Salvador in violation of a court order:
The Government then moved … to vacate or stay the portion of the district court’s order directing the Government to facilitate Cristian’s return.… The Government pointed to a May 1, 2025 “Indicative Asylum Decision” USCIS issued wherein it declared that, if Cristian were returned to the United States, it would deny his asylum application… Cristian contends that neither “USCIS regulation, policy, [n]or practice” 19 provides for “Indicative Asylum Decisions.” Resp. Br. at 21 (“[S]uch a practice appears nowhere in the agency’s 271-page procedural manual .…”). Cristian concludes that the Indicative Asylum Decision is a “litigation-driven” document—a “contrivance” “created just for this case.” Id. The Government has no response to this charge—a deafening silence.
In L.G.M.L v. Noem, 1:25-cv-02942 (D.D.C.), September 10, 2025, regarding the government’s claim that the parents of 300 Guatemalan children had requested their removals:
At the Aug. 31 hearing, the Justice Department stated: It’s outrageous that the plaintiffs are trying to interfere with these reunifications. All of these children have parents or guardians in Guatemala who have requested their return.
Per Politico: Prior to the government’s concession, [Judge] Kelly raised questions about the discrepancy between what [DOJ] told [Judge] Sooknanan and what the Guatemalan government reported about its interactions with the families. Ensign was not present for Wednesday’s hearing, instead leaving the argument to Sarah Welch, counsel to the assistant attorney general for Justice’s Civil Division. Welch said the administration’s initial claim that parents had requested their children’s return should be considered “withdrawn.”
In American Association of University Professors v. Rubio 1:25-cv-10685 (D. Mass), regarding the arrest of noncitizens for their political speech and the government’s claim that masks were necessary to carry out those arrests:
And there’s the issue of masks. This Court has listened carefully to the reasons given by Öztürk’s captors for masking up and has heard the same reasons advanced by the defendant Todd Lyons, Acting Director of ICE. It rejects this testimony as disingenuous, squalid and dishonorable.
In Barco Mercado v. Noem, 1:25-cv-06568 (S.D.N.Y.), regarding the conditions of ICE detainees:
[ICE assistant field office director] Ms. Zanello’s declarations in substantial measure avoided the thrust of plaintiff’s factual showing and offered unpersuasive statistics that concealed more than they disclosed despite the availability to defendants of much more illuminating data. Moreover, the record casts doubt on defendants’ compliance with the TRO. The response to the motions thus gives no confidence that the defendants are seriously interested in making a full disclosure of conditions in the 26 Fed Hold Rooms, much less materially improving those conditions anytime soon except, perhaps, to the extent they are compelled by law.
In State of Oregon v. Trump, 3:25-cv-01756 (D. Or.), October 4, 2025, regarding the deployment of National Guard to support ICE:
… Finally, the President’s own statements regarding the deployment of federalized National Guardsmen further support that his determination was not “conceived in good faith” or “in the face of the emergency and directly related to the quelling of the disorder or the prevention of its continuance.”… The President’s determination was simply untethered to the facts.
In State of Oregon v. Trump, 3:25-cv-01756 (D. Or.), November 7, 2025, regarding the facts in Oregon that justified the deployment of National Guard to support ICE:
The Court does not find this testimony to be credible… The Court has already discussed the reasons it does not find reliable [ICE Field Office] Director Wamsley’s testimony … it is inconsistent with every other piece of evidence received on the subject…
In Illinois v. Trump, 1:25-cv-12174 (N.D. Ill.), October 10, 2025, regarding the facts in Illinois that justified the deployment of the National Guard to support ICE:
the Court cannot conclude that Defendants’ declarations are reliable. Two of Defendants’ declarations refer to arrests made on September 27, 2025 of individuals who were carrying weapons and assaulting federal agents. See Doc. 62–2 at 19; Doc. 62–4 at 5. But neither declaration discloses that federal grand juries have refused to return an indictment against at least three of those individuals, which equates to a finding of a lack of probable cause that any crime occurred. … In addition to demonstrating a potential lack of candor by these affiants, it also calls into question their ability to accurately assess the facts.
In United States v. Jaime Alberto Quintanilla-Chavez, 5:25-CR-388 (W.D. Tex.), October 20, 2025, dismissing an indictment for assaulting an ICE agent arresting someone without a warrant:
The Government has presented inconsistent positions about the basis for the initial stop, for the arrest, and for the charges against the Defendant. The sworn affidavit submitted in support of the Criminal Complaint in this matter tells a very different—and largely fictional—story… the Assistant U.S. Attorney conceded at a bond hearing in July 2025 that Fuentes had “misrepresented what was going on.” …The stop was not made because of expired license plates—or even the domestic violence allegations, which were never investigated—but solely based on a tip about the Defendant’s immigration status…. At the bond hearing, the Government characterized the stop as a “probable cause” stop because of a suspected immigration violation. The story changed yet again at the hearing on the instant motions, when DO Hernandez himself acknowledged that he did not seek a warrant for the Defendant’s arrest precisely because he did not think, based on his investigation, he had enough information to establish that the Defendant was removable. … The inconsistencies do not end there….
In Shinwari v. Hyde, 1:25-cv-12021 (D. Mass.), October 20, 2025, regarding a habeas petition for a detained immigrant:
As for an arrest warrant, which does factor more directly into the relevant analysis, the respondents inaccurately describe the facts and cite no law to support their claim that the warrant “cannot be relied on to support a view of detention authority one way or the other.” Id. at 6. The warrant is dated months before Shinwari’s arrest (and before the expedited removal order the respondents inaccurately suggest issued “contemporaneously” with the warrant). … To the extent the respondents seek reconsideration based on their different (and decidedly incorrect) recitation of the events described in this paragraph, their motion is DENIED.
In Gomes v. Hyde, 1:25-cv-11571 (D. Mass.), July 7, 2025, regarding the statutory authority to detain an immigrant:
The Court cannot credit Respondents’ new position as to the basis for Mr. Lopez Benitez’s detention, which was adopted post hoc and raised for the first time in this litigation
In Lopez-Campos v. Raycraft, 2:25-cv-12486 (E.D. Mich.), August 29, 2025, regarding the statutory authority to detain an immigrant:
The Court cannot credit this new position that was adopted post-hoc, despite clear indication that Lopez-Campos was not detained under this provision.
In Santos Franco v. Raycraft, 2:25-cv-13188 (E.D. Mich.), October 21, 2025, regarding the statutory authority to detain an immigrant:
Three years after having initially released Santos Franco, and following his rearrest on August 16, 2025, Respondent now claims his detention was under Section 1225(b)(2)(A). … The Court cannot credit this new position that was adopted post-hoc, despite clear indication that Santos Franco was not detained under this provision when he was first encountered in 2016.
In Moreno Gonzalez v. Noem, 1:25-cv-13323, (N.D. Ill.), November 17, 2026, regarding
Via Capitol News Illinois: S. District Judge Robert Gettleman said the testimony “contradicted pretty thoroughly” a declaration from ICE Deputy Field Director Shawn Byers about the conditions in Broadview. “It’s just unacceptable.”
In State of California v. United States Department of Transportation, 1:25-cv-00208 (D.R.I.), November 4, 2025, regarding the conditioning of federal transportation grants on supporting deportation efforts:
Defendants contend, ad nauseam, that this “clarification” makes it clear that the IEC merely asks the States to certify compliance with federal law, and that “[t]o the extent that Plaintiffs fear that the government may have a different interpretation of what compliance with federal law means than they do, that is speculation that cannot support a facial challenge to all applications of the Immigration Conditions.” ECF No. 72 at 6. The Court will not indulge Defendants’ sophistry regarding the IEC…. Nevertheless, the plain text of the Duffy Order, the Duffy Directive, and the challenged grant conditions makes it unassailably clear that the IEC requires that states certify that they “will cooperate with Federal officials in the enforcement of Federal law.” … The Court has disposed of Defendants’ nakedly misleading characterization of what the [immigration enforcement condition (IEC)] requires. Deprived of that gimcrack defense, Defendants’ imposition of the IEC is patently arbitrary and capricious.
In Chicago Headline Club v. Noem, 1:25-cv-12173 (N.D. Ill.), November 20, regarding a temporary restraining order prohibiting the indiscriminate use of force, tear gas, rubber bullets, and other violence against protesters:
Turning to [Border Patrol Sector Chief Greg] Bovino, the Court specifically finds his testimony not credible. Bovino appeared evasive over the three days of his deposition, either providing “cute” responses to Plaintiffs’ counsel’s questions or outright lying.… Most tellingly, Bovino admitted in his deposition that he lied multiple times about the events that occurred in Little Village that prompted him to throw tear gas at protesters.
