‘I’m willing to take the heat’: DOJ moves to sanction immigration lawyer

(LOS ANGELES) The Department of Justice under President Trump is moving to sanction Los Angeles immigration lawyer Joshua Schroeder after he stalled the deportation of client Vang Lor. DOJ filings on August 6–7, 2025 seek substantial monetary penalties, testing a new push to punish what the administration calls frivolous immigration litigation.

Schroeder says he’s “willing to take the heat,” arguing he acted to protect due process. The DOJ alleges he misrepresented the legal basis for Lor’s removal by claiming the government relied on the Alien Enemies Act, when officials say it proceeded under standard immigration law.

What’s driving the sanctions push

• On March 22, 2025, a presidential memorandum ordered Attorney General Pam Bondi to pursue penalties against lawyers and law firms that bring “frivolous, unreasonable, and vexatious” cases in immigration and asylum matters.
• The memo directs agencies to enforce existing conduct rules: 8 C.F.R. 292.1 et seq., 8 C.F.R. 1003.101 et seq., and 8 C.F.R. 1292.19.
• Agencies were told to review lawyer conduct over the past eight years for further actions, which could include reassessing security clearances and government contracts.
• The memo does not create new standards; it instructs the DOJ and DHS to lean on tools already in the rulebook and press harder on discipline.

Key players and positions

• President Trump frames the effort as a response to “unscrupulous behavior” by some attorneys who, he says, bog down immigration enforcement.
• Attorney General Pam Bondi carries out the directive and reports on disciplinary actions.
• Legal experts, including UCLA’s Scott Cummings, call the DOJ’s move against Schroeder “highly unusual,” warning it signals punishment for lawyers who challenge policy.
• Advocacy groups such as the American Immigration Council condemn the effort as intimidation that chills representation.

The case at the center

• Client: Vang Lor, a Laotian immigrant with a 1990s attempted murder conviction.
• Lawyer: Joshua Schroeder, who briefly halted Lor’s deportation before the DOJ sought sanctions for alleged misstatements.
• Government claim: Schroeder misled the court about the law used for removal.
• Defense stance: Schroeder says his filings aimed to safeguard due process and present all plausible grounds for relief.

Why it matters to immigrants and attorneys

• Higher risks for immigration attorneys: monetary penalties, referrals for discipline, and potential threats to licenses or federal contracts.
• Access to counsel: Immigrants and asylum seekers may struggle to find representation if lawyers fear sanctions; fewer filings could mean fewer opportunities to test legal errors or new issues in court.
• Increased scrutiny: Law firms with past cases against the administration may face reviews of security clearances and contracts.

How the sanctions process can work

1. DOJ files a motion for sanctions in federal court in a specific case.
2. If a judge finds misconduct or frivolous filings, penalties can follow.
3. DOJ can send disciplinary referrals under immigration court rules, potentially leading to administrative action against the lawyer.
4. These actions rely on existing disciplinary frameworks, not new laws.

Supporters vs. critics

• Supporters: argue strong penalties will reduce abuse and speed enforcement.
• Critics: call the push political, aimed at scaring lawyers who defend immigrants’ rights; they point to past episodes (e.g., 2019 border-area detentions of attorneys) as context for the current approach.

Historical and policy context

• Immigration lawyers have faced pressure before, but the current step—targeting a specific attorney publicly—raises the stakes.
• As reported by VisaVerge.com, policy swings often ripple through courtrooms quickly; shifts in enforcement priorities can reshape who gets representation and how cases proceed.

What attorneys can do now

• Keep detailed case notes and clearly cite legal bases for filings—judges look for accuracy and candor.
• Review professional conduct rules cited by the DOJ and train staff on compliance.
• Seek second opinions on close calls before filing emergency motions.
• If targeted by DOJ, consult defense counsel experienced in sanctions and professional responsibility.

What immigrants and families should know

• Ask your lawyer to explain the legal basis for any emergency filing in simple terms.
• Keep copies of all paperwork—especially notices from immigration courts or DHS.
• If your lawyer withdraws due to risk, ask for referrals to nonprofit legal providers or bar association panels.
• Watch for deadlines. Missing one can close off relief options like motions to reopen or appeals.

Possible next steps in court

• Judges may narrow the reach of sanctions in individual cases or set clearer limits on when the government can seek penalties.
• Advocacy groups are preparing legal challenges to the broader policy, arguing it chills the right to counsel and undermines due process.

Impacts to watch in coming months

• Potential drop in emergency motions and stays of removal if lawyers fear penalties.
• More DOJ reviews of past case filings against the federal government, particularly from the last eight years.
• Law firms auditing immigration practices to reduce exposure, which could slow acceptance of high-risk cases.

Relevant official resources

• The Department of Justice posts policy and enforcement updates at justice.gov, including press releases and guidance. The DOJ’s Executive Office for Immigration Review provides professional conduct rules and discipline procedures from links on the main DOJ site.
• Immigration forms still apply as usual. For motions to reopen removal proceedings, attorneys may use Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, available from U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services at uscis.gov.
  • Current Form I-290B: https://www.uscis.gov/i-290b

Quotes from the field

“I’m willing to take the heat.” — Joshua Schroeder, arguing clients like Lor deserve a fair shot, even when their past crimes make the politics tough.

“Highly unusual, and sends a message to the bar.” — Scott Cummings, UCLA.

• Advocacy groups: The policy intimidates lawyers and harms immigrants’ access to the courts.

Human stakes

Consider a family where the main earner faces sudden removal. An emergency court filing might be the only way to pause deportation and review old errors. If lawyers pull back, families may lose that last chance. Cases like Vang Lor’s show how a single motion can change the timeline—and sometimes the outcome.

Practical takeaways

• For lawyers: Double-check legal bases, train teams on the cited regulations, and prepare for possible DOJ scrutiny.
• For immigrants: Seek written explanations from your attorney, track deadlines, and know where to find help if representation changes.
• For advocates and communities: Document any chilling effects on counsel access and prepare data for potential court challenges.

Critical deadline/warning: The DOJ review called for by the presidential memorandum includes an eight-year retrospective look at lawyer conduct—meaning past filings could be scrutinized. Lawyers and firms should act quickly to review records and consult counsel if concerned.

The bottom line: The sanctions push sits at the intersection of policy and people’s lives. The outcome of the government’s case against Joshua Schroeder will signal how far the administration plans to go—and how much risk immigration lawyers must carry to keep the courthouse doors open.