DOJ Suspends Attorney Who Admitted Maryland Man’s Deportation Was a Mistake: What It Means for U.S. Immigration Policy

In 2025, the DOJ suspends attorney Erez Reuveni after he admitted a Maryland man was wrongfully deported to El Salvador. Learn the full story, legal implications, and what it means for U.S. immigration policy. In a move that has sent shockwaves through the legal and immigration communities, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) has suspended a top immigration lawyer after he acknowledged in federal court that a Maryland man had been deported in error. The attorney, Erez Reuveni, was placed on administrative leave after admitting that Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a Salvadoran man with legal protection against deportation, was wrongfully removed from the United States.

This incident is not just a procedural mistake—it has become a national controversy, exposing deeper tensions within immigration enforcement, judicial oversight, and legal ethics inside the DOJ.

Who Is Kilmar Abrego Garcia?

Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a 29-year-old father of three from El Salvador, had been living in Maryland since fleeing gang violence in his home country in 2011. After entering the U.S. without authorization, Abrego Garcia applied for legal protections and was granted withholding of removal status in 2019 by an immigration judge. This form of relief, distinct from asylum, bars deportation based on credible fears of persecution or torture if the individual were to return to their home country. DOJ suspends attorney

Abrego Garcia married a U.S. citizen and lived a stable life in Maryland, working in the construction industry to support his wife, his biological son, and two stepchildren. Despite his legal protections, Abrego was detained by ICE in March 2025 and deported just days later to El Salvador—without a hearing, without a proper court order, and, as later admitted, without legal justification.

How the Deportation Happened

On March 12, 2025, agents from Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) arrested Abrego Garcia near his residence. Three days later, he was deported to El Salvador, where he was immediately detained and held in the Terrorism Confinement Center (CECOT)—a notorious maximum-security facility used to detain alleged gang members and political prisoners.

The deportation occurred despite Abrego Garcia’s valid protection from removal. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) later described the incident as an “administrative oversight,” asserting that agents believed he had ties to the MS-13 gang—a claim strongly denied by his legal team and unsupported by any recent court findings.

The DOJ Attorney Who Spoke the Truth

The most dramatic twist in this case came during a federal hearing in late March. Erez Reuveni, a senior attorney with the DOJ’s Office of Immigration Litigation, surprised many when he acknowledged in open court that the deportation of Abrego Garcia had been “a mistake.”

Reuveni admitted that ICE had not followed proper procedures and even confessed that his own office had not been properly informed of the removal. “This should not have happened,” he told U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis, who had already ordered the government to retrieve Abrego Garcia from El Salvador.

Judge Xinis expressed shock at the situation and praised Reuveni for his honesty, but the DOJ didn’t share that view. Within days of his court appearance, Reuveni was placed on indefinite paid administrative leave, reportedly for making statements that “contradict the department’s litigation position.” DOJ suspends attorney

DOJ’s Response: Punishing Transparency?

While DOJ officials haven’t publicly confirmed the exact reason for Reuveni’s suspension, sources close to the case report that his candid comments in court led to internal backlash. Attorney General Pam Bondi stated that all DOJ attorneys are expected to “zealously defend the interests of the United States,” implying that Reuveni’s comments undermined the department’s stance in court.

Legal experts and advocacy groups are alarmed by this response. According to Geoffrey Hoffman, a professor of immigration law at the University of Houston, “What we’re seeing is a chilling message to government attorneys—that truthfulness and transparency in court can cost you your job.”

Judge Orders Government to Bring Garcia Back

In response to the wrongful deportation, Judge Xinis issued an extraordinary order: she instructed the federal government to “immediately take all reasonable steps” to return Abrego Garcia to the United States before April 7, 2025. She ruled that the deportation violated both procedural due process and federal immigration law.

In her written opinion, Judge Xinis noted that the government had not complied with legal requirements before removing Garcia and that his continued detention in El Salvador could pose grave risks to his safety.

However, the Biden administration, echoing arguments made during the Trump era, filed an emergency appeal, claiming that the judiciary has no authority to compel the executive branch to negotiate with a foreign government to return a deported person. That appeal is still pending in the U.S. Court of Appeals.

A Man Caught in a Bureaucratic Storm

Meanwhile, Kilmar Abrego Garcia remains imprisoned in El Salvador’s CECOT facility. Human rights observers have raised serious concerns about the conditions there, including the use of mass incarceration without due process and reports of torture. DOJ suspends attorney

Garcia’s wife and legal team continue to fight for his return. “My husband was taken from our family illegally,” said Maria Abrego, his wife, in a press conference. “He had court protection. He had rights. The government broke the law, and now my children ask me every day when their father is coming home.”

Legal and Ethical Ramifications

The DOJ’s decision to suspend Reuveni has reignited national debates about the role of government lawyers. Should they serve as advocates for agency policy at all costs? Or do they also bear a responsibility to the courts and to the broader interests of justice?

According to David Cole, National Legal Director of the ACLU, “When a government lawyer admits a mistake, he should be applauded, not punished. Suppressing honesty erodes public trust in the rule of law.”

In addition, several former DOJ officials have condemned the suspension as politically motivated. One former senior official who requested anonymity stated: “Erez Reuveni did what a good lawyer is supposed to do—he told the truth. If that’s grounds for suspension now, we have a serious constitutional crisis brewing.”

Broader Implications for Immigration Enforcement

This case also highlights larger systemic issues within ICE and DHS. Critics argue that the agencies are plagued by communication breakdowns, lack of oversight, and an internal culture that prioritizes removals over due process. DOJ suspends attorney

The case of Kilmar Abrego Garcia shows what can happen when deportation machinery is allowed to operate unchecked. As immigration policy becomes a hot-button issue ahead of the 2026 midterms, the public may demand more accountability for what many see as overreach by enforcement agencies.

Could This Case Set a Legal Precedent?

The court’s efforts to compel the return of a deported person—especially one deported unlawfully—could set a significant legal precedent. If the appellate court upholds Judge Xinis’s ruling, it could open the door for similar lawsuits by other deportees wrongfully removed without due process.

Legal scholars are already calling this one of the most important immigration law cases of the decade. It could redefine the boundaries between judicial review and executive discretion in immigration matters.

Final Thoughts

The suspension of DOJ attorney Erez Reuveni and the wrongful deportation of Kilmar Abrego Garcia form a powerful and disturbing narrative about the fragility of justice in the immigration system.

From a legal standpoint, this case could change the course of how immigration enforcement is litigated in court. From a human perspective, it’s a tragic story of a man separated from his family by bureaucratic error and a system that failed to uphold its own rules. DOJ suspends attorney

As the April 7 deadline to return Garcia approaches, all eyes are on the DOJ, the courts, and the Biden administration. Whether justice will be served—or further delayed—will likely depend on how far the judiciary is willing to go to hold the government accountable for its mistakes.