A federal judge has delivered a significant ruling against the Department of Justice’s attempt to impose sanctions on a California attorney who represented a client facing deportation proceedings. Chief U.S. District Judge Frances M. Tydingco-Gatewood, sitting in Guam, issued a comprehensive 14-page order on Monday rejecting the government’s motion for sanctions against attorney Joshua Schroeder.
The case centered on Schroeder’s representation of Vang Lor, a client with a decades-old attempted murder conviction who faced deportation to Laos. The government had sought substantial monetary sanctions against Schroeder, alleging he acted in bad faith and unreasonably multiplied proceedings by maintaining positions without legal or factual basis.
In her ruling, Judge Tydingco-Gatewood, appointed by President George W. Bush, found that Schroeder did not knowingly or recklessly raise frivolous arguments in the habeas proceedings. The judge specifically noted that the attorney did not have an improper purpose in filing the petition or related motions on behalf of his client.
The government’s sanctions motion, filed in August 2025, claimed Schroeder submitted patently meritless filings in three separate courts with the improper purpose of delaying his client’s removal. The DOJ argued that it was never true that Lor’s removal was being conducted under the Alien Enemies Act proclamation, which specifically applied to Venezuelan nationals.
The sanctions request came in the context of a broader executive order directing the Attorney General to seek sanctions against attorneys and law firms engaging in what the administration deemed frivolous, unreasonable, and vexatious litigation against the United States or in matters before executive departments and agencies.
Judge Tydingco-Gatewood’s order dismissed the sanctions motion with prejudice, meaning the government cannot bring the same motion again. In her analysis, the judge acknowledged that while Schroeder’s filings could have been more diligently prepared, better articulated, and more clearly organized, the circumstances did not warrant the exceptional remedy of sanctions.
The judge characterized Schroeder as a reasonable and zealous advocate who relied on circumstantial evidence and professional experience to argue on behalf of his client. She noted that although courts ultimately disagreed with the attorney’s arguments about the potential application of the Alien Enemies Act to his client’s case, this did not make the arguments completely baseless or indicate a failure to conduct a competent inquiry.
The ruling emphasized the expedited nature of the case and recognized that Schroeder worked quickly to preserve his client’s rights. The judge found that the attorney hoped to preserve his client’s right to due process of law and that, considering the good faith arguments presented, Schroeder’s conduct was reasonable.
Following the ruling, Schroeder expressed relief at the judge’s decision, emphasizing that it is every lawyer’s ethical responsibility to fight vigorously for their clients even when cases are difficult and relief seems unlikely. He noted that the order clearly stated his arguments were not meritless and were made in good faith.
This ruling represents another setback for the government’s efforts to impose sanctions on attorneys representing clients in immigration-related matters. While the DOJ continues to appeal similar cases involving law firms, this particular attempt to sanction an individual attorney has been definitively rejected by the federal court.
Leave a Reply