DOJ Sanctions Against Immigration Lawyer Signal Trump’s Escalating Legal Crackdown

The U.S. Justice Department is pursuing unprecedented sanctions against California attorney Joshua Schroeder for filing emergency motions to halt his client’s deportation – a move immigration advocates call retaliation for legal advocacy. This marks the first known application of President Trump’s March 2025 executive order targeting attorneys who file “pointless, unreasonable, or harassing” immigration lawsuits, signaling a dramatic escalation in the administration’s confrontation with immigrant rights lawyers.

What Are the Consequences for Lawyers Defending Immigrants Under Trump’s Policies?

The DOJ’s 32-page sanctions request accuses solo practitioner Schroeder of making “many baseless arguments” and exhibiting a “pattern of intentional or reckless false statements” while defending a Hmong immigrant facing deportation to Laos. Schroeder temporarily delayed the deportation by arguing his client faced “direct danger to his life” in Laos due to Hmong people’s collaboration with U.S. forces during the Vietnam War. He also challenged the administration’s use of the Alien Enemies Act, warning it could “target any immigrant or US citizen the government dislikes” (Politico, August 2025).

Despite the stay, Schroeder’s client was transferred to a detention facility in Guam and deported in June. Federal prosecutors now seek “significant” financial penalties against Schroeder, citing Trump’s directive to punish “dishonest behavior that weakens immigration enforcement.” Schroeder told The Guardian the move resembles Trump’s actions against high-profile firms representing political opponents: “They’re going all the way down to the very bottom – that’s where I am.”

How the Sanctions Threaten Access to Legal Representation

Legal experts warn the DOJ’s action could paralyze deportation defenses nationwide:

1. Chilling Effect on Pro Bono Work: Schroeder represented his client free of charge. Sanctions could deter similar volunteer efforts
2. Targeting Solitary Practitioners: Unlike large firms, solo attorneys lack institutional financial buffers against penalties
3. Broad Interpretation of “Frivolous”: The DOJ claims Schroeder persisted despite “multiple warnings” about the deportation order’s validity
4. Political Weaponization: The March executive order explicitly prioritizes sanctions against immigration attorneys

“The government claims I ‘refused to give clear answers’ and showed ‘avoidance,’” Schroeder stated, “but every argument was grounded in constitutional concerns” (DOJ Filing, August 2025).

The Human Cost Behind the Legal Battle

Schroeder’s client entered the U.S. as a child, later served prison time for attempted murder, and was detained during an ICE check-in while living with his wife in Oklahoma. Advocates note the case exemplifies how legal safeguards unravel under tightened enforcement:

• Rapid Deportation Pipeline: Client moved to Guam detention despite court intervention
• Statutory Ambiguity: Judge dismissed the case citing the Immigration Nationality Act, not the Alien Enemies Act Schroeder referenced
• Retroactive Penalization: Sanctions pursued despite the case’s closure

The administration’s approach fundamentally reshapes attorney-client dynamics in immigration courts, where deportation orders increased 28% since January 2025 according to Syracuse University’s TRAC data.

This landmark sanctions case threatens to criminalize zealous legal advocacy, potentially denying vulnerable immigrants their last defense against deportation while testing constitutional boundaries between government authority and due process. As Schroeder awaits the court’s decision, every immigration attorney in America watches – knowing their next motion could make them the DOJ’s target. Contact your congressional representatives to demand oversight of this unprecedented judicial intimidation.

Must Know

Q: Why is the DOJ targeting immigration lawyer Joshua Schroeder?
A: The DOJ alleges Schroeder made “baseless arguments” to delay a client’s deportation. This follows President Trump’s March 2025 executive order directing sanctions against lawyers filing immigration suits deemed “frivolous.”

Q: What penalties could Schroeder face?
A: Prosecutors seek “significant” financial sanctions, though exact amounts remain unspecified. The court will determine penalties after reviewing the DOJ’s evidence.

Q: How does this affect immigrants’ legal rights?
A: Advocates warn sanctions could deter attorneys from taking deportation cases, especially pro bono. This may leave thousands without representation during expedited removals.

Q: Is this part of broader immigration policy changes?
A: Yes. The administration has increased ICE arrests by 34% year-over-year while fast-tracking deportations through programs like “Operation Return to Sender.”

Q: What was the outcome for Schroeder’s client?
A: Despite temporary relief, the Hmong immigrant was deported to Laos in June 2025 after being transferred to a detention facility in Guam.

Q: Have sanctions been used this way before?
A: Immigration attorneys report unprecedented DOJ aggression under Trump’s order. Schroeder appears to be the first individual lawyer targeted.