On Monday, a federal district court judge barred a Department of Justice attorney from ever appearing again in a particular case, and promised to review whether two other Department attorneys would suffer a similar fate. In the case, Benitez v. Department of Homeland Security, the plaintiffs allege that federal immigration officers operating in New York have engaged in a practice of arresting people on the basis of their ethnicity and without obtaining required warrants.
In a hearing on Monday before issuing the sanction, U.S. District Judge Sanket J. Bulsara of the Eastern District of New York said the Justice Department’s letter to the court on Nov. 4, 2026 grossly misrepresented the scope of an injunction in another case. Judge Bulsara said Assistant U.S. Attorney Thomas Price’s signed letter was done in “bad faith, a deliberate attempt to mislead the Court, perpetuate a fraud on the tribunal, and violate[s] obligations under Rule 11.”
Monday’s order also stated: “should the Court discover any future misrepresentation or false statement (either by counsel or any witness or declarant): after an opportunity to be heard, should preliminary findings be confirmed, the Court will enter a default judgment in this case in favor of Plaintiffs.” The order also required that supervisors from the U.S. Attorney’s Office handle the case going forward, and set the deadline for contesting the Rule 11 sanctions as Monday, Nov. 16.
At the hearing, Judge Bulsara also said that he would likely reach the same remedy of disqualification from the case for two other assistant U.S. attorneys whose names appeared in the signature block of the Nov. 4 letter, unless they could show that they were not involved in drafting, reviewing, or submitting the document to the court. Monday’s order instructed the two attorneys to provide sworn declarations by Nov. 16 describing “the extent to which they edited, supervised, and/or wrote any portion” of the letter.
The heart of the problem is the Justice Department’s detailed and extended description of an injunction in another case in the eastern district, Sanchez Alfaro v. Mullin. The Nov. 4 letter represented that the injunction in that case was limited to the individual petitioner. Judge Bulsara said he was “flabbergasted” by that representation:
“When I issued the order that I issued in this case, I actually did it fully expecting I was giving a gift horse to the respondents. Because it was my expectation and understanding that there were portions of the relief that the plaintiffs in this case were seeking had been moot because of the existence of an injunction that was already put in place. … so what I got back here was astounding. I was flabbergasted by the response.”
In Sanchez Alfaro, Judge Gary R. Brown issued a district-wide injunction, stating in one of his key rulings:
“Before effecting a civil immigration arrest in this judicial district, ICE shall obtain a valid warrant of arrest in advance, except when an immigration officer has reason to believe that the person is likely to escape before a warrant can be obtained.”
At Monday’s hearing, Judge Bulsara said the government’s characterization of the Sanchez Alfaro order was unreasonable. Because Sanchez Alfaro involved the same Assistant U.S. Attorney Price who signed the Nov. 4 letter, Judge Bulsara continued, “the only conclusion that can be drawn from these statements is that they’re made in bad faith.” As evidence that Price had deliberately mischaracterized the injunction, Judge Bulsara quoted from briefs Price filed in Sanchez Alfaro, in which the DOJ attorney argued that it would be difficult to comply with the district-wide directive.
Judge Bulsara noted that Judge Brown had also accused Price of misconduct. In one order in the Sanchez Alfaro case, Judge Brown called the government’s arguments “both factually incorrect and legally spurious.” Judge Bulsara concluded that there was “a pattern of dissembling, obfuscation, and frankly outright misrepresentation that bled from Alfaro into this case.”
Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires lawyers to certify that their representations to the court are factually correct and do not contain frivolous legal arguments. Attorneys accused of violating Rule 11 may be subject to monetary or professional sanctions after being given an opportunity to contest the allegations.
Judge Bulsara told Richard Hayes, head of the civil division at the U.S. Attorney’s office, that he should consider removing Price from other cases. “You should think about whether you want to swap him out and have some other lawyer from your office appear in any of his cases before me,” Judge Bulsara warned. “Your office is on notice.”
Hayes did not respond to the misconduct allegations at Monday’s hearing, instead asking for time to review the transcript.
