Judge Criticizes Trump’s DOJ for Attempting to Penalize ‘Reasonable’ Attorney

A recent judicial ruling has rejected a move by the Department of Justice (DOJ) to sanction an attorney, citing a previous executive order from former President Donald Trump. The judge in question, however, found the lawyer’s actions to be “reasonable” and dismissed the motion with prejudice, preventing it from being refiled.

In a decision released Monday, Chief U.S. District Judge Frances M. Tydingco-Gatewood of Guam, appointed by former President George W. Bush, issued a comprehensive 14-page opinion. This opinion concluded that California attorney Joshua Schroeder did not act with reckless or frivolous intent while representing his client, Vang Lor, in habeas corpus cases.

Judge Tydingco-Gatewood stated, “The court further finds that Mr. Schroeder did not have an improper purpose in filing the petition or any of the related motions. Mr. Schroeder worked swiftly to preserve his client’s rights. Although his submissions could have been better organized and articulated, the court does not find this situation warrants sanctions.”

In August 2025, as reported by Law&Crime, the DOJ had accused Schroeder of acting in bad faith by perpetuating proceedings with unfounded positions to prevent his client, who faced deportation for a decades-old attempted murder charge, from being sent to Laos.

The DOJ argued that Schroeder’s claim—that the government was using Trump’s Alien Enemies Act proclamation, which targeted Venezuelans, to deport Lor—was unfounded. They suggested that Schroeder made multiple baseless filings across three courts to improperly delay proceedings.

The motion followed through on Trump’s order to then-U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi, directing the AG to “seek sanctions against attorneys and law firms who engage in frivolous, unreasonable, and vexatious litigation against the United States or in matters before executive departments and agencies of the United States.”

While the DOJ is actively appealing to salvage the executive order as applied to law firms, its campaign for “substantial monetary sanctions” against an individual attorney has hit a wall too.

Tydingco-Gatewood did not agree that Schroeder’s representations about the AEA’s potential application to Lor were baseless under the circumstances. Rather, she saw him as a “reasonable” and zealous advocate:

Although this court and the court in the Northern District of Texas ultimately disagreed with counsel and concluded that this was a typical [Immigration and Nationality Act] INA removal based on the evidence presented by the Government, the court does not find Mr. Schroeder’s arguments to be completely baseless or that he did not conduct a competent inquiry. Counsel relied on circumstantial evidence and his own professional experience to argue zealously on behalf of his client because he hoped to preserve his client’s right to due process of the law. Considering the expedited nature of this case and the good faith arguments presented by counsel, Mr. Schroeder’s conduct was reasonable.

Schroeder told Politico that it’s “every lawyer’s ethical responsibility to fight vigorously for their clients even when the case is difficult and relief seems unlikely,” and he said he was “relieved” the judge saw that’s what happened.

“Chief Judge Tydingco-Gatewood’s order clearly states that my arguments were not meritless and were made in good faith,” he reportedly said.