{"id":149975,"date":"2026-04-30T15:00:08","date_gmt":"2026-04-30T23:00:08","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/2026\/04\/30\/a-judge-just-turned-the-governments-own-reconsider-motion-against-them-and-its-glorious\/"},"modified":"2026-04-30T15:00:08","modified_gmt":"2026-04-30T23:00:08","slug":"a-judge-just-turned-the-governments-own-reconsider-motion-against-them-and-its-glorious","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/2026\/04\/30\/a-judge-just-turned-the-governments-own-reconsider-motion-against-them-and-its-glorious\/","title":{"rendered":"A Judge Just Turned The Government\u2019s Own \u2018Reconsider\u2019 Motion Against Them And It\u2019s Glorious"},"content":{"rendered":"

There\u2019s a moment in Judge Gary R. Brown\u2019s April 27th order (available below) in Sanchez Alfaro v. Mullin<\/em> that stopped me cold. After noting the detailed litany of constitutional violations committed by ICE agents, Judge Brown reveals that in the Department of Justice\u2019s motion to reconsider the \u201cdescription of the efforts that would be undertaken to ensure compliance with the law\u201d was\u2026 nothing<\/em>. The Eastern District of New York judge then dropped this line: \u201cSo, paradoxically, it is this Court\u2019s turn to ask respondents to reconsider their position.\u201d<\/p>\n

And if the government pulls a Bartleby and prefers not to? \u201cShould respondents\u2019 answer remain unchanged, the Court will take appropriate action.\u201d That\u2019s cold as ice (pun intended). But I guess that\u2019s what happens when you submit a brief that\u2019s \u201clegally spurious.\u201d<\/p>\n

Let\u2019s back up. The underlying facts here are remarkably egregious, even by the degraded standards we\u2019ve all gotten used to. ICE arrested William Enrique Sanchez Alfaro \u2014 a man who had been granted Special Immigrant Juvenile (SIJ) status, deferred action, and work authorization \u2014 without a warrant. Officers later admitted they arrested the wrong man<\/em>. The administrative warrant and paperwork were issued after<\/em> the arrest, as post-hoc cover. Then, after the petitioner sought legal relief, his deferred action was revoked, with no explanation other than the illegal arrest itself. Judge Brown found four distinct constitutional and statutory violations. He gave the government 21 days to tell the court what it planned to do about it, but got \u201cnothing\u201d in the way of substance.<\/p>\n

And it actually gets worse because that nothingburger of a response was wrapped in a motion for reconsideration so weak that Judge Brown methodically dismantled it section by section, calling out \u201cfrivolous\u201d arguments, a \u201cblatant misstatement,\u201d selective quotation of case law that was \u201cmisleading,\u201d and jurisdictional arguments that were \u201centirely meritless.\u201d<\/p>\n

At one point, the government cited DHS v. Thuraissigiam<\/em> to claim that habeas corpus only allows for simple release \u2014 and therefore the court\u2019s work was done, case over, nothing to see here. Brown spent several pages demonstrating that the government was misreading a case that said almost the exact opposite of what they claimed. He noted the government \u201ccannot plead ignorance\u201d because he had cited the correct precedents to these same respondents in previous cases. They knew\u2026 or at least, they should have.<\/p>\n

The government also tried to argue that the court had improperly raised the issue of Sanchez Alfaro\u2019s SIJ and deferred action status on its own. Brown\u2019s response was withering: the petitioner had raised it in his very first filing. The government had briefed the issue in their own papers. Calling it a surprise was a \u201cblatant misstatement.\u201d<\/p>\n

So that\u2019s the backdrop against which Judge Brown wrote the line that should have every government attorney in the Eastern District of New York paying very close attention. Because what comes after \u201cthe Court will take appropriate action\u201d is not vague. Brown spelled it out in careful, patient, devastating detail.<\/p>\n

If the government won\u2019t tell the court what it plans to do to prevent future illegal ICE enforcement actions \u2014 warrantless arrests, post-hoc paperwork, disregard of legally awarded immigration status, retaliation \u2014 then the court will consider whether injunctive relief is necessary. And not just narrow relief. Brown noted that if he\u2019s not satisfied that an injunction confined to protecting this specific petitioner would be sufficient, \u201cequitable relief at the policy level might be required.\u201d<\/p>\n

This is not a judge that\u2019s bluffing. He is laying out, step by step, exactly what legal tools he has available and exactly how he plans to use them if the government comes back with another round of \u201cnothing.\u201d<\/p>\n

This is, of course, part of a pattern that has become a drumbeat across the federal judiciary. A Bush-appointed judge in Minnesota had to threaten <\/a>to haul the ICE acting director into court personally before ICE released a man it had been ordered to give a bond hearing \u2014 and only backed down when ICE blinked first. A Trump-appointed judge found <\/a>ICE was systematically blocking detainees\u2019 access to counsel in Minnesota and issued a TRO. A judge in Illinois had to explain <\/a>that you can\u2019t freeze grant funds, declare the grants closed, and call it a day. In West Virginia,<\/a> four judges across the political spectrum spent weeks issuing increasingly volcanic opinions, with one noting the government had \u201coffered no evidence that they have seen or even care about\u201d the court\u2019s rulings. And that doesn\u2019t even get into the Kilmar Abrego Garcia saga<\/a>, where the government spent months trying to paper over a wrongful deportation to a forced labor camp.<\/p>\n

What makes Judge Brown\u2019s order distinct isn\u2019t just the quality of the benchslap \u2014 though it is a good one, opening as it does with the federal officer oath of allegiance, which, again, is not subtle. What makes it notable is the explicit, almost tutorial quality of the warning. He\u2019s not just ruling against the government. He is explaining to them, in advance, in writing, exactly what is about to happen to them if they don\u2019t change course. <\/p>\n

The question is whether there\u2019s anyone left at DOJ that cares. Given the track record, I have my doubts. But Judge Brown has made the stakes about as clear as a federal judge is able to make them. The next move is theirs.<\/p>\n

sanchez-alfaro<\/a>Download<\/a><\/div>\n
\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

Kathryn Rubino is a Senior Editor at Above the Law, host of\u00a0The Jabot podcast<\/a>, and co-host of\u00a0Thinking Like A Lawyer<\/a>. AtL tipsters are the best, so please connect with her. Feel free to email\u00a0her<\/a>\u00a0with any tips, questions, or comments and follow her on Twitter\u00a0@Kathryn1<\/a>\u00a0or Bluesky\u00a0@Kathryn1<\/a><\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

The post A Judge Just Turned The Government\u2019s Own \u2018Reconsider\u2019 Motion Against Them And It\u2019s Glorious<\/a> appeared first on Above the Law<\/a>.<\/p>\n

<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n

There\u2019s a moment in Judge Gary R. Brown\u2019s April 27th order (available below) in Sanchez Alfaro v. Mullin<\/em> that stopped me cold. After noting the detailed litany of constitutional violations committed by ICE agents, Judge Brown reveals that in the Department of Justice\u2019s motion to reconsider the \u201cdescription of the efforts that would be undertaken to ensure compliance with the law\u201d was\u2026 nothing<\/em>. The Eastern District of New York judge then dropped this line: \u201cSo, paradoxically, it is this Court\u2019s turn to ask respondents to reconsider their position.\u201d<\/p>\n

And if the government pulls a Bartleby and prefers not to? \u201cShould respondents\u2019 answer remain unchanged, the Court will take appropriate action.\u201d That\u2019s cold as ice (pun intended). But I guess that\u2019s what happens when you submit a brief that\u2019s \u201clegally spurious.\u201d<\/p>\n

Let\u2019s back up. The underlying facts here are remarkably egregious, even by the degraded standards we\u2019ve all gotten used to. ICE arrested William Enrique Sanchez Alfaro \u2014 a man who had been granted Special Immigrant Juvenile (SIJ) status, deferred action, and work authorization \u2014 without a warrant. Officers later admitted they arrested the wrong man<\/em>. The administrative warrant and paperwork were issued after<\/em> the arrest, as post-hoc cover. Then, after the petitioner sought legal relief, his deferred action was revoked, with no explanation other than the illegal arrest itself. Judge Brown found four distinct constitutional and statutory violations. He gave the government 21 days to tell the court what it planned to do about it, but got \u201cnothing\u201d in the way of substance.<\/p>\n

And it actually gets worse because that nothingburger of a response was wrapped in a motion for reconsideration so weak that Judge Brown methodically dismantled it section by section, calling out \u201cfrivolous\u201d arguments, a \u201cblatant misstatement,\u201d selective quotation of case law that was \u201cmisleading,\u201d and jurisdictional arguments that were \u201centirely meritless.\u201d<\/p>\n

At one point, the government cited DHS v. Thuraissigiam<\/em> to claim that habeas corpus only allows for simple release \u2014 and therefore the court\u2019s work was done, case over, nothing to see here. Brown spent several pages demonstrating that the government was misreading a case that said almost the exact opposite of what they claimed. He noted the government \u201ccannot plead ignorance\u201d because he had cited the correct precedents to these same respondents in previous cases. They knew\u2026 or at least, they should have.<\/p>\n

The government also tried to argue that the court had improperly raised the issue of Sanchez Alfaro\u2019s SIJ and deferred action status on its own. Brown\u2019s response was withering: the petitioner had raised it in his very first filing. The government had briefed the issue in their own papers. Calling it a surprise was a \u201cblatant misstatement.\u201d<\/p>\n

So that\u2019s the backdrop against which Judge Brown wrote the line that should have every government attorney in the Eastern District of New York paying very close attention. Because what comes after \u201cthe Court will take appropriate action\u201d is not vague. Brown spelled it out in careful, patient, devastating detail.<\/p>\n

If the government won\u2019t tell the court what it plans to do to prevent future illegal ICE enforcement actions \u2014 warrantless arrests, post-hoc paperwork, disregard of legally awarded immigration status, retaliation \u2014 then the court will consider whether injunctive relief is necessary. And not just narrow relief. Brown noted that if he\u2019s not satisfied that an injunction confined to protecting this specific petitioner would be sufficient, \u201cequitable relief at the policy level might be required.\u201d<\/p>\n

This is not a judge that\u2019s bluffing. He is laying out, step by step, exactly what legal tools he has available and exactly how he plans to use them if the government comes back with another round of \u201cnothing.\u201d<\/p>\n

This is, of course, part of a pattern that has become a drumbeat across the federal judiciary. A Bush-appointed judge in Minnesota had to threaten <\/a>to haul the ICE acting director into court personally before ICE released a man it had been ordered to give a bond hearing \u2014 and only backed down when ICE blinked first. A Trump-appointed judge found <\/a>ICE was systematically blocking detainees\u2019 access to counsel in Minnesota and issued a TRO. A judge in Illinois had to explain <\/a>that you can\u2019t freeze grant funds, declare the grants closed, and call it a day. In West Virginia,<\/a> four judges across the political spectrum spent weeks issuing increasingly volcanic opinions, with one noting the government had \u201coffered no evidence that they have seen or even care about\u201d the court\u2019s rulings. And that doesn\u2019t even get into the Kilmar Abrego Garcia saga<\/a>, where the government spent months trying to paper over a wrongful deportation to a forced labor camp.<\/p>\n

What makes Judge Brown\u2019s order distinct isn\u2019t just the quality of the benchslap \u2014 though it is a good one, opening as it does with the federal officer oath of allegiance, which, again, is not subtle. What makes it notable is the explicit, almost tutorial quality of the warning. He\u2019s not just ruling against the government. He is explaining to them, in advance, in writing, exactly what is about to happen to them if they don\u2019t change course. <\/p>\n

The question is whether there\u2019s anyone left at DOJ that cares. Given the track record, I have my doubts. But Judge Brown has made the stakes about as clear as a federal judge is able to make them. The next move is theirs.<\/p>\n

sanchez-alfaro<\/a>Download<\/a><\/p>\n

\n

\"\"Kathryn Rubino is a Senior Editor at Above the Law, host of\u00a0The Jabot podcast<\/a>, and co-host of\u00a0Thinking Like A Lawyer<\/a>. AtL tipsters are the best, so please connect with her. Feel free to email\u00a0her<\/a>\u00a0with any tips, questions, or comments and follow her on Twitter\u00a0@Kathryn1<\/a>\u00a0or Bluesky\u00a0@Kathryn1<\/a><\/em><\/strong><\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

There\u2019s a moment in Judge Gary R. Brown\u2019s April 27th order (available below) in Sanchez Alfaro v. Mullin that stopped me cold. After noting the detailed litany of constitutional violations committed by ICE agents, Judge Brown reveals that in the Department of Justice\u2019s motion to reconsider the \u201cdescription of the efforts that would be undertaken […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":149976,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_et_pb_use_builder":"","_et_pb_old_content":"","_et_gb_content_width":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[16],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-149975","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-above_the_law"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/xira.com\/p\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/IMG_5243-1-scaled-e1623338814705-620x568-u2cAlW.jpg?fit=620%2C568&ssl=1","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/149975","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=149975"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/149975\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/149976"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=149975"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=149975"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=149975"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}