In a recent and highly controversial move, U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi placed Department of Justice (DOJ) attorney Erez Reuveni on administrative leave. This action followed Reuveni’s courtroom concession regarding the wrongful deportation of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a Maryland resident erroneously sent to a notorious prison in El Salvador. The case has ignited a robust debate about the ethical obligations of government lawyers and the expectations of zealous advocacy.​

The Case of Kilmar Abrego Garcia

Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a Salvadoran national with legal work authorization in the U.S., was deported on March 15, 2025, despite a 2019 immigration judge’s order barring his removal due to the likelihood of persecution by gangs in El Salvador. His deportation was part of a broader initiative that included the removal of alleged gang members to El Salvador’s Terrorism Confinement Center (CECOT). However, Abrego Garcia had no criminal record, and his deportation was later acknowledged by the administration as an “administrative error.”

The Role of Erez Reuveni

During federal court proceedings, Erez Reuveni, acting deputy director of the Office of Immigration Litigation, conceded that Abrego Garcia’s deportation was wrongful and recommended his return to the U.S. This admission was met with disapproval from Attorney General Pam Bondi, who criticized Reuveni for not zealously defending the government’s position. Consequently, Reuveni was placed on paid administrative leave.

Arguments for Disciplining Reuveni

From the DOJ’s perspective, attorneys are expected to vigorously represent the government’s interests. Reuveni’s acknowledgment of the deportation error could be seen as undermining the administration’s stance, potentially weakening its position in ongoing and future litigation. The DOJ may argue that internal disagreements should be addressed within the department, and public concessions in court could set a precedent that hampers the government’s ability to defend its policies effectively.

Arguments Against Disciplining Reuveni

Conversely, legal ethics dictate that attorneys must not mislead the court. Reuveni’s admission aligns with his duty as an officer of the court to present truthful information, even if it conflicts with his client’s position. Disciplining him for this honesty could discourage other government attorneys from being forthright, potentially leading to a culture where zealous advocacy eclipses ethical obligations. Stacey Young, a former DOJ lawyer, defended Reuveni, stating that DOJ attorneys are placed in an “impossible position” and should be commended for choosing “principle over politics and the rule of law over partisan loyalty.”

Bottom line: The decision to place Erez Reuveni on administrative leave raises critical questions about the balance between zealous representation and ethical responsibility. While government attorneys have a duty to advocate for their client’s interests, this obligation does not supersede their role as officers of the court committed to truth and justice. Penalizing Reuveni for his candid acknowledgment of an error sets a troubling precedent that may deter attorneys from upholding their ethical duties. In the pursuit of justice, conceding a weak or indefensible position is not a failure but a testament to an attorney’s integrity and commitment to the rule of law.