>> Continued From the Previous Page <<
“This was an illegal act,” Judge Xinis told DOJ attorney Erez Reuveni, as reported by Politico. “Congress said you can’t do it, and you did it anyway.”
Reuveni didn’t argue. He apologized multiple times, saying the deportation was a mistake — not because Abrego couldn’t be deported, but because he allegedly shouldn’t have been sent specifically to El Salvador. The judge, apparently unmoved by the lawyer’s remorse, refused to lift her order and demanded Abrego’s return by midnight Monday.
The Trump Administration, citing national security, immediately filed an emergency appeal — arguing that Abrego poses a serious threat and should not be brought back into the country. But on Monday, the Fourth Circuit — composed of Judges Stephanie Thacker (Obama appointee), Harvie Wilkinson (Reagan), and Robert King (Clinton) — unanimously upheld Judge Xinis’ decision.
Even more outrageous was the court’s criticism of the DOJ’s internal discipline of Reuveni. After Friday’s hearing, the DOJ placed Reuveni on leave — a move Attorney General Pam Bondi defended with strong language.
“At my direction, every Department of Justice attorney is required to zealously advocate on behalf of the United States. Any attorney who fails to abide by this direction will face consequences,” Bondi said in a statement.
But the court didn’t see it that way. Instead, the panel accused the Trump DOJ of undermining legal ethics and “the rule of law,” lashing out at the discipline of a lawyer who merely told the truth in court.
“[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,” the judges wrote.
Their opinion didn’t stop there. The court launched into a blistering attack on the administration’s legal stance, accusing officials of acting as if due process doesn’t apply to people already in the U.S.
Just Released: Trump White House Collector’s Bobblehead!
“The United States Government has no legal authority to snatch a person who is lawfully present in the United States off the street and remove him from the country without due process. The Government’s contention otherwise, and its argument that the federal courts are powerless to intervene, are unconscionable,” the judges wrote.
The ruling has sparked fierce backlash among conservatives, who say the court is prioritizing a foreign national with gang ties over American sovereignty and national security.
It’s not lost on anyone that Abrego wasn’t your average deportee — he’s a suspected member of MS-13, one of the most brutal and dangerous gangs in the world. The administration insists that his removal was justified under immigration law, and many are now questioning whether activist judges are putting political ideology ahead of the safety of U.S. citizens.
At the center of it all is a dangerous precedent: a court forcing the U.S. to welcome back a known gang suspect — simply because of a bureaucratic technicality.
This fight is far from over. But one thing is clear: the battle lines between the rule of law, national security, and judicial activism just got a whole lot sharper.
