Remember me
Then-candidate Donald Trump speaks with members of the media as attorney Todd Blanche listens before the start of his trial at Manhattan criminal in New York, Tuesday, May 14, 2024. (Michael M. Santiago/Pool Photo via AP)
After the DOJ cited President Donald Trump's executive order to try to punish an opposing attorney in court, a judge has not only called that lawyer "reasonable" but also rejected the government's sanctions motion "with prejudice," so it can't be brought again.
Chief U.S. District Judge Frances M. Tydingco-Gatewood, a George W. Bush appointee in the U.S. territory of Guam, issued a 14-page order Monday that found California attorney Joshua Schroeder "did not knowingly or recklessly raise frivolous arguments" on behalf of Vang Lor in habeas cases.
"The court further finds that Mr. Schroeder did not have an improper purpose in filing the petition or any of the related motions," the judge said. "Mr. Schroeder worked in an expedited manner in an attempt to best preserve his client's rights. While his filings could have been more diligently prepared, better articulated, and more clearly organized, the court does not find that this is one of those exceptional circumstances that warrant sanctions[.]"
As Law&Crime reported in August 2025, when the DOJ filed its sanctions motion, the government claimed Schroeder acted "in bad faith, unreasonably and vexatiously multiplied proceedings by maintaining positions without bases in fact and law" to try to stop his client with a decades-old attempted murder rap from being deported to Laos.
Specifically, the DOJ said it was never true that the government was removing Lor from the U.S. pursuant to Trump's Alien Enemies Act (AEA) proclamation, which applied to Venezuelans. The DOJ surmised that Schroeder submitted "patently meritless filings in three separate courts" for the "improper" purpose of delay.
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.