Judge Bars DOJ Attorney for Misleading Court in Immigration Case
Federal judge sanctions government lawyer for misrepresenting court injunctions regarding immigration arrest procedures.
1Judicial Sanction Issued
U.S. District Judge Sanket J. Bulsara barred Assistant U.S. Attorney Thomas Price from appearing in the Benitez v. Department of Homeland Security case. The judge cited a deliberate attempt to mislead the court regarding a previous injunction. This rare disciplinary action follows a November 4, 2026, letter submitted by the Justice Department.
2Misrepresentation of Injunctions
The core dispute involves the government's characterization of an injunction from the Sanchez Alfaro v. Mullin case. While the government claimed the injunction was limited to an individual, Judge Bulsara noted it was actually a district-wide mandate. He expressed shock at the government's attempt to minimize the scope of that prior ruling.
3Pattern of Misconduct
Judge Bulsara highlighted a pattern of dissembling and obfuscation originating from the Sanchez Alfaro proceedings. He noted that Judge Gary R. Brown had previously criticized the same attorney for making arguments that were factually incorrect and legally spurious. This history influenced the court's decision to view the recent misrepresentation as bad faith.
4Rule 11 Violations
The court determined that the government's filings violated Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. This rule requires attorneys to certify that their representations are factually accurate and lack frivolous arguments. By misrepresenting the scope of a court order, the attorney failed to meet these fundamental professional and legal obligations.
5Broader Legal Consequences
The judge warned that two other attorneys listed on the misleading letter face potential disqualification unless they prove they were not involved in drafting or reviewing the document. They must submit sworn declarations by November 16. The court also indicated that future misrepresentations could result in a default judgment against the government.
6Supervisory Oversight Required
Following the incident, the court ordered that supervisors from the U.S. Attorney’s Office must handle the case moving forward. Judge Bulsara explicitly advised Richard Hayes, head of the civil division, to consider removing Price from other active cases. The office has been placed on formal notice regarding the attorney's future conduct.
7Immigration Arrest Context
The underlying case, Benitez v. Department of Homeland Security, involves allegations that federal immigration officers in New York arrest individuals based on ethnicity without required warrants. The court's previous injunction in the related Sanchez Alfaro case specifically required ICE to obtain valid arrest warrants before effecting civil immigration arrests within the judicial district.
8Future Court Stance
This ruling establishes a strict standard for government transparency in the Eastern District of New York. By threatening default judgment for future false statements, Judge Bulsara has signaled a zero-tolerance policy toward government obfuscation. The legal community is now watching to see how the Department of Justice responds to these severe sanctions.
Original article: Just Security — Judge Bars DOJ Attorney for Misleading Court in Immigration Case