{"id":57138,"date":"2025-07-11T15:08:24","date_gmt":"2025-07-11T15:08:24","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/57138\/"},"modified":"2025-07-11T15:08:24","modified_gmt":"2025-07-11T15:08:24","slug":"whistleblower-implicates-emil-bove-in-criminal-contempt","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/57138\/","title":{"rendered":"Whistleblower Implicates Emil Bove in Criminal Contempt"},"content":{"rendered":"

A whistleblower\u2019s documents<\/a> provided<\/a> to Congress implicate Emil Bove in the administration\u2019s violation of a court order that prohibited the transfer of more than 100 Venezuelans to El Salvador\u2019s CECOT prison. Bove is President Donald Trump\u2019s nominee to serve as a judge on the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, and the Senate Judiciary Committee is scheduled<\/a> to vote on his nomination on July 17.<\/p>\n

In April, Chief Judge James Boasberg held<\/a> there is probable cause that administration officials engaged in criminal contempt by having \u201cwillfully disobeyed a binding judicial decree.\u201d Bove is identified in the whistleblower\u2019s documents as having played a central role in the conduct of concern. The documents also provide evidence that Bove has seriously misled Congress about his conduct.<\/p>\n

The whistleblower is Erez Reuveni, who was a career Department of Justice (DOJ) attorney for nearly 15 years<\/a> until he was dismissed in April of this year. The documents he has produced to the Senate Judiciary Committee, including emails and text messages, concern the Trump administration\u2019s controversial decision to transfer Venezuelan nationals to El Salvador on Mar. 15 under the purported authority of the Alien Enemies Act (AEA). The cache of documents, which was first reported by Politico<\/a>, is important for the following four reasons.<\/p>\n

First, newly released text messages confirm Reuveni\u2019s previous allegation that Bove told others in the DOJ that the administration should consider telling the courts \u201cfuck you<\/a>\u201d should judges seek to enjoin the deportations. Newly released text messages<\/a> between Reuveni and his colleagues, including his direct supervisor, August Flentje, show them apparently referencing Bove\u2019s suggestion.<\/p>\n

Second, an email released by Reuveni directly implicates Bove in the administration\u2019s decision to defy the court order demanding that the AEA deportees be returned to U.S. soil.<\/p>\n

Third, the documents also implicate Bove in the violation of due process rights of the migrants deported under the purported authority of the AEA.<\/p>\n

Fourth, the new documents raise serious concerns about the veracity of Bove\u2019s testimony during his Senate confirmation hearing.<\/p>\n

New Evidence of Bove\u2019s Role in Wilfully Defying a Court Order<\/strong><\/p>\n

On Saturday, Mar. 15, President Donald Trump released a public proclamation purporting to invoke <\/a>the 1798 AEA as the basis for removing from the United States alleged members of a Venezuelan gang known as Tren de Aragua. According to the White House, the administration flew 137 Venezuelan nationals<\/a> to El Salvador that day under the purported authority of the AEA.<\/p>\n

Over twelve hours before those flights departed the United States, the ACLU and Democracy Forward, had sued<\/a> the Trump administration challenging the removal of their Venezuelan clients. Chief Judge Boasberg, of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) that evening barring the administration from removing anyone under the AEA.<\/p>\n

Boasberg was crystal clear that his Mar. 15 ruling meant that the Trump administration must return the Venezuelans to U.S. soil, even if the planes carrying the deportees landed in El Salvador. Boasberg explained<\/a> in no uncertain terms that the individuals should not be deplaned or disembark even if they reached El Salvador:<\/p>\n

\n

[Y]ou shall inform your clients of this immediately, and that any plane containing these folks that is going to take off or is in the air needs to be returned to the United States, but those people need to be returned to the United States. However that\u2019s accomplished, whether turning around a plane or not [dis]embarking anyone on the plane or those people covered by this on the plane, I leave to you. But this is something that you need to make sure is complied with immediately (Tr. 43).<\/p>\n

I would assume that means that they are either not on the planes or that they will not be removed from the planes and will be brought back once the planes land in El Salvador. Is that fair? (Tr. 5; see also Tr. 44)<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

In a newly released Mar. 16th email<\/a> from Yaakov Roth, the acting head of the DOJ\u2019s Civil Division, to Reuveni and other DOJ officials, Roth wrote:<\/p>\n

\n

I have been told by ODAG that the principal associate deputy attorney general advised DHS last night that the deplaning of the flights that had departed US airspace prior to the court\u2019s minute order was permissible under the law and the court\u2019s order.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

The principal associate deputy attorney general was Bove. As Politico explained<\/a>, it is \u201cthat interpretation of his orders\u201d that Boasberg rejected and found probable cause to initiate contempt proceedings.<\/p>\n

The email would presumably implicate Bove in the \u201ccontumacious conduct\u201d as identified by Chief Judge Boasberg.<\/p>\n

Indeed, as Boasberg\u2019s verbal order made clear, the court\u2019s ruling was precisely the opposite of what Bove advised the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), as stated in Roth\u2019s email. That is, \u201cdeplaning of the flights that had departed US airspace prior [to] the court\u2019s minute order was\u201d not<\/strong> \u201cpermissible under the law and the court\u2019s order.\u201d The court specifically stated that the deportees were not to disembark or be removed from the planes.<\/p>\n

Reuveni\u2019s contemporaneous emails make it clear that the DOJ attorneys well understood Boasberg\u2019s order \u2013 and that Bove\u2019s advice plainly contradicted their understanding.<\/p>\n

In an email sent at 6:44 p.m. on Mar. 15, Reuveni inquired as to the location of the people deported under the AEA and whether they had disembarked:<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

Reuveni followed up two minutes later, stating that the class certified by the court included \u201call noncitizens in US custody subject to the AEA,\u201d and asking for details \u201cASAP\u201d concerning \u201cremovals not yet effectuated, including those involving folks in the air.\u201d<\/p>\n

, <\/p>\n

At 6:48 p.m., Reuveni wrote that Boasberg had \u201cspecifically ordered us to not remove anyone in the class, and to return anyone in the air.\u201d<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

At 7:04 p.m., Reuveni wrote: \u201cNo one subjected to AEA in our custody can be removed. And anyone in the air should be returned, unless they have a title 8 final order.\u201d<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

At 7:18 p.m., Reuveni specifically raised concerns about being held in contempt if they deplaned the AEA deportees when they landed.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

The next morning, Sunday, Mar. 16 at 8:07 a.m., Reuveni wrote, \u201cour advice here on injunction compliance was to not deplane anyone from these planes who is subject to an AEA removal\u201d \u2013 precisely the opposite of the advice Bove apparently provided to DHS.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

As the series of Reuveni\u2019s emails make clear: The DOJ attorneys fully understood that Boasberg had ordered the return of all AEA deportees and that they should not be deplaned in El Salvador.<\/p>\n

Notably, on Sunday, Mar. 16, Axios published an article<\/a> entitled, \u201cExclusive: How the White House ignored a judge\u2019s order to turn back deportation flights.\u201d Axios posted the article on social media<\/a> at 3:49 p.m. Sixteen minutes later, Reuveni texted Flentje a link to an Axios article. Flentje replied, \u201cWe are likely saved for today by the fact that Boasberg is on vacation.\u201d<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

Judge Boasberg\u2019s Finding of Criminal Contempt<\/strong><\/p>\n

On Apr. 16, Boasberg ruled<\/a> that there was probable cause to hold Trump administration officials in criminal contempt for violating his TRO. \u201cThe Court ultimately determines that the Government\u2019s actions on that day [Mar. 15] demonstrate a willful disregard for its Order, sufficient for the Court to conclude that probable cause exists to find the Government in criminal contempt,\u201d Boasberg wrote. \u201cThe Court does not reach such conclusion lightly or hastily; indeed, it has given Defendants ample opportunity to rectify or explain their actions. None of their responses has been satisfactory.\u201d<\/p>\n

The Trump administration did not even dispute the key fact in Boasberg\u2019s ruling \u2013 namely, that the government transferred the Venezuelans to Salvadoran custody after his written TRO was issued. The government \u201cdoes not dispute that after this written TRO issued, it temporarily landed two planeloads of class members in Honduras, flew them to El Salvador, deplaned them there, and then \u2014 critically \u2014 transferred them from U.S. to Salvadoran custody,\u201d Boasberg wrote.<\/p>\n

Boasberg set forth a two-step process that would follow. \u201cFirst, before initiating any criminal-contempt proceedings, courts typically allow the contumacious party an opportunity to purge its contempt,\u201d the judge wrote. \u201cThe most obvious way for Defendants to do so here is by asserting custody of the individuals who were removed in violation of the Court\u2019s classwide TRO so that they might avail themselves of their right to challenge their removability through a habeas proceeding.\u201d<\/p>\n

Should the Trump administration choose not to purge its contempt, Boasberg explained, then \u201cthe Court will proceed to identify the individual(s) responsible for the contumacious conduct by determining whose \u2018specific act or omission\u2019 caused the noncompliance.\u201d After determining the responsible individual(s), the court (citing Fed. R. Crim. P. 42(a)(2)) would then \u201crequest that the contempt be prosecuted by an attorney for the government.\u201d Should the government decline, then \u201cthe interest of justice requires,\u201d the Court will \u201cappoint another attorney to prosecute the contempt.\u201d<\/p>\n

Before Boasberg got that process under way, the government appealed his decision, and the Court of Appeals granted an administrative stay<\/a> while the issue is on appeal.<\/p>\n

The email released to the public on Thursday surely will be relevant for the district court\u2019s criminal contempt proceedings if those are permitted to continue. And the email would presumably implicate Bove in the \u201ccontumacious conduct\u201d as identified by Chief Judge Boasberg.<\/p>\n

Bove\u2019s Role in the Trump Administration\u2019s Violation of Due Process Rights<\/strong><\/p>\n

Separate from the issue of contempt of court orders is Bove\u2019s role in a clear violation of the due process rights of the men who are now in CECOT prison. The Trump administration appealed Bove\u2019s Mar. 15 TRO, and the case was brought before the Supreme Court. On Apr. 7, the Court ruled<\/a> that the plaintiffs\u2019 challenge should have been brought as a habeas petition in Texas, where the Venezuelans were held prior to being removed, as opposed to Washington, D.C. As a result, the Court vacated Boasberg\u2019s TROs.<\/p>\n

Still, the Court emphasized that its \u201corder and per curiam confirm that the detainees subject to removal orders under the AEA are entitled to notice and an opportunity to challenge their removal.\u201d Citing prior precedent, the Court wrote: \u201c\u2018It is well established that the Fifth Amendment entitles aliens to due process of law\u2019 in the context of removal proceedings.\u201d The justices added that \u201cAEA detainees must receive notice\u2026that they are subject to removal under the Act\u201d and \u201cmust be afforded within a reasonable time and in such a manner as will allow them to actually seek habeas relief in the proper venue before such removal occurs.\u201d<\/p>\n

The 137 Venezuelans deported under the AEA on Mar. 15 were afforded no such due process, including the ability to seek habeas relief. Indeed, as Marty Lederman has pointed out<\/a>, individuals who received a written notice<\/a> at the time were told: \u201cYou are not entitled to a hearing, appeal, or judicial review of this notice and warrant of apprehension and removal.\u201d<\/p>\n

The newly released email indicates that Bove was a key decision maker in the administration\u2019s violation of this basic constitutional right.<\/p>\n

Bove\u2019s Testimony Before the Senate Judiciary Committee: Potential False Statements in Nomination Hearing\/Misleading Congress<\/strong><\/p>\n

Finally, the whistleblower\u2019s documents corroborate the claim that Bove made false statements in his nomination hearing. Either the whistleblower\u2019s allegations or Bove\u2019s denials are true\u2013but not both\u2013when it comes to what Bove said in a Friday, Mar. 14 DOJ meeting. At that meeting, the Department was apparently preparing for the President\u2019s Mar. 15 public invocation of the AEA and the prospect of court orders stopping the transfer of detainees to El Salvador.<\/p>\n

In Bove\u2019s judicial nomination hearing, one of his most important exchanges<\/a> on what he said at the Mar. 14 meeting was with Senator Adam Schiff (D-CA).<\/p>\n

\n

Sen. Schiff: \u201cDid you suggest, as Mr Reuveni wrote, that DOJ would need to consider telling the courts \u2018fuck you\u2019 and ignore any such cort order.\u201d<\/p>\n

Bove: \u201cI did not suggest that there would be any need to consider ignoring court orders.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

In stark contrast to this testimony, Reuveni\u2019s whistleblower disclosure states:<\/p>\n

\u201cBove then made a remark concerning the possibility that a court order would enjoin those removals before they could be effectuated. Bove stated that DOJ would need to consider telling the courts \u2018fuck you\u2019 and ignore any such court order.\u201d<\/p>\n

Notably, Bove also said<\/a> in his testimony, \u201cI will reiterate, I did not advise any Justice Department attorney to violate court orders. The Deputy Attorney General, as you made clear in your opening remarks, Chairman, has confirmed that the account in that whistleblower complaint is not accurate,\u201d and proceeded to discuss the Mar. 14 meeting.<\/p>\n

First, several of the whistleblower\u2019s documents provide strong corroboration that Bove did suggest in the Mar. 14 meeting saying \u201cfuck you\u201d to a court that issued an injunction. That evidence directly contradicts Bove\u2019s testimony, \u201cI did not suggest that there would be any need to consider ignoring court orders.\u201d<\/p>\n

During the Saturday, Mar. 15 hearing before Judge Boasberg, Reuveni exchanged text messages with a colleague that appears to allude to the \u201cfuck you\u201d comment by Bove.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

At 6:44 p.m., Reuveni notified his colleagues in real time of Boasberg\u2019s TRO ruling. He then immediately texted his supervisor, Flentje, with an apparent reference to the \u201cfuck you\u201d statement by Bove.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

Later that evening, at 8:16 pm., after Reuveni says he reviewed public information showing two flights had landed in Honduras, he texted a colleague with another reference to the \u201cfuck you\u201d comment.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

Finally, after Reuveni was placed on administrative leave, he exchanged text messages with Flentje that appear to corroborate that Flentje was at the Mar. 14 meeting where they pushed back against Bove\u2019s suggestion of violating court orders.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

Finally, documentary proof that Bove did indeed go through with disobeying the court order on Mar. 15 strongly implies his testimony was false when he denied having suggested the day before that DOJ attorneys consider ignoring such a court order. As explained above, the emails and texts provided by the whistleblower show that Bove played a central role in ignoring Boasberg\u2019s orders. What happened here is not a close case.<\/p>\n

FEATURED IMAGE: Emil Bove, President Donald Trump’s nominee to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Third Circuit, is sworn in before testifying during his Senate Judiciary Committee nomination hearing in the Hart Senate Office Building on June 25, 2025 in Washington, DC. A whistleblower alleged that Bove, President Trump’s former personal lawyer, told Justice Department staff to defy court orders and continue to carry out Trump\u2019s deportation plans. (Photo by Kevin Dietsch\/Getty Images)<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"A whistleblower\u2019s documents provided to Congress implicate Emil Bove in the administration\u2019s violation of a court order that…\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":57139,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[4,3],"tags":[41851,356,41852,41853,409,50,41854,41855,67,132,68,41856],"class_list":{"0":"post-57138","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","7":"category-united-states","8":"category-us","9":"tag-contempt","10":"tag-courts","11":"tag-department-of-justice-doj","12":"tag-federal-courts","13":"tag-immigration","14":"tag-news","15":"tag-nomination-process","16":"tag-senate-judiciary-committee-sjc","17":"tag-united-states","18":"tag-unitedstates","19":"tag-us","20":"tag-whistleblowing"},"share_on_mastodon":{"url":"https:\/\/pubeurope.com\/@us\/114835233567684520","error":""},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/57138","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=57138"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/57138\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/57139"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=57138"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=57138"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=57138"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}