A federal judge accused a Justice Department lawyer of deliberately misleading the court in an ICE case, then pulled him off the case on the spot.
Quick Take
- Judge Benjamin Bulsara found “prima facie Rule 11 violations” by Assistant U.S. Attorney Thomas Price on November 9, 2026.
- The judge barred Price from further appearances in the case, Benitez v. Department of Homeland Security.
- Bulsara said a November 4 letter from Price misrepresented an injunction on when ICE agents need warrants to make arrests.
- The government has until November 16 to argue against formal Rule 11 sanctions.
Judge Pulls DOJ Lawyer From ICE Case
During a November 9, 2026 hearing, Judge Bulsara announced the court had found “prima facie Rule 11 violations” tied to a letter filed by the government five days earlier. He immediately barred Assistant U.S. Attorney Thomas Price from appearing further in the case, a sharp and unusual move for a sitting federal prosecutor.
The case, Benitez v. Department of Homeland Security, centers on a court order limiting when Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents can make arrests without a warrant. Price signed the November 4 letter at the heart of the dispute, making him personally responsible for its contents under the rules governing federal court filings.
What the Letter Allegedly Got Wrong
Reports say the letter misstated the scope of the injunction on ICE warrant requirements. Judge Bulsara did not treat this as a simple mistake. He said the filing was written “in bad faith” and amounted to “a deliberate attempt to mislead the Court, perpetuate a fraud on the tribunal, and violate obligations under Rule 11.”
Rule 11 is the federal rule requiring lawyers to make a reasonable inquiry into the facts and law before filing anything with a court. Courts can issue sanctions when a filing is frivolous, legally unreasonable, or lacks factual support, even without proof of intentional dishonesty. Bulsara’s language went further, pointing to deliberate deception rather than careless error.
Deadlines and Fallout for the Prosecution Team
The court set a firm timeline. Price must file notice of his withdrawal from the case by November 13, 2026, and supervisory prosecutors at the U.S. Attorney’s office must now handle the litigation going forward. The judge gave the government until November 16 to respond before deciding whether to impose formal Rule 11 sanctions.
Two other prosecutors whose names appeared in the letter’s signature block, identified in reporting as Lyons and Leonardo, were ordered to submit sworn statements explaining how much they wrote, edited, or supervised the filing. That detail shows the judge wants to know whether the misleading language came from Price alone or reflected a broader breakdown inside the prosecution team.
The U.S. attorney’s office has acknowledged “the importance and seriousness of the court’s concerns” and said it would respond to the judge’s request, according to reporting on the case. That response is still pending as the November 16 deadline approaches.
Why Accountability Matters Here
Conservatives have long demanded that government lawyers tell courts the truth, especially in cases touching on federal power like immigration enforcement. A judge finding that a Justice Department attorney misrepresented a court order on ICE arrests is a serious matter, regardless of which administration is in office. Rule violations by prosecutors undermine public trust in the very system meant to enforce the law fairly.
At the same time, the judge’s finding remains preliminary. The government still has a chance to contest sanctions before November 16, and the full text of the letter and the injunction it allegedly misstated has not been made public. What is clear is that a federal judge took the unusual step of removing a sitting prosecutor from a case over his own signed filing, and ordered colleagues to explain their roles in writing it.
Sources:
washingtontimes.com, immigration-analytics.com, justsecurity.org, abovethelaw.com, standingrecord.com
