The latest effort to hold Gregory Bovino accountable for his disregard of the rule of law

The Border Patrol official is the subject of a sanctions request in Kilmar Abrego Garcia's criminal case in Tennessee.

Gregory Bovino always finds a way.

Unfortunately for the rule of law, it appears generally to be a way to violate court orders, the law, or the Constitution itself.

The previously midlevel Border Patrol official — one of 20 sector chiefs around the nation — has been promoted in the Trump administration to lead extreme immigration enforcement efforts in several cities across the nation in recent months.

After leading Los Angeles efforts, his confrontations in Chicago — and his seeming desire to be the face of some of the most authoritarian aspects of Trump’s immigration enforcement in the U.S. — led to an accusation that he personally violated the court order in a case over treatment of protesters and press outside the Broadview ICE facility by deploying tear gas at protesters. That, in turn, led to his being deposed and his actions being addressed by U.S. District Judge Sarah Ellis in court (although the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit later blocked her order that he report in to the court daily). In Charlotte, where he went next, Bovino appeared to mock the growing opposition to his authoritarian tactics.

As we head into 2026, Bovino is somehow now the subject of potential sanctions in Kilmar Abrego Garcia’s criminal case.

In the closing days of 2025, a battle has been brewing in Tennessee over whether Bovino managed to violate a court order there. No, he is not involved in the case. Yes, he had decided to publicly — and viciously — comment on it.

In the days after Abrego’s release from immigration detention on December 11, Bovino went on TV, talking about him with incendiary language, calling him in one interview on Newsmax “an MS-13 gang member,” a “wife-beater,” and an “alien smuggler.” Bovino continued, saying, “He needs to be deported now,” and adding that “extremist judges“ are making it so “MS-13 gang members” are “ready to prey on Americans yet again.“

Here’s the problem. More than a month earlier, on October 27, U.S. District Judge Waverly Crenshaw issued an order in Abrego’s criminal case barring Justice Department and Homeland Security employees from public statements that would “have a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing an adjudicative proceeding in the matter, including especially that will interfere with a fair trial.“

In his opinion accompanying the order, Crenshaw, quoting an earlier case, noted that “‘damaging and highly inflammatory statements are not so readily cured through the passage of time. … That is why it is critically important for both sides comply with [the relevant local rule] moving forward.“

In the days after Bovino’s appearances, on December 19, Abrego’s lawyers filed a motion for sanctions due to the government’s violation of that order via Bovino’s statements.

The lawyers’ summary of their basis for the filing is shocking. Beyond Bovino’s statements themselves is an extremely out-of-the-ordinary discussion of DOJ’s response to questions raised about Bovino’s statements:

After detailing the local rule, the order, and Bovino’s Fox News and NewsMax appearances, Abrego’s lawyers asked for the court to order the government to provide some pretty basic information about what happened regarding the order and Bovino:

Creshaw ordered a government response by December 29 and any reply by December 31.

DOJ’s response opened by devoting two pages to presenting public statements made by Abrego, his immigration attorneys, and people supporting Abreo following his release from immigration custody, before adding one paragraph about incorrect redactions in a filing by Abrego’s criminal lawyers — an error corrected by the lawyers before anyone had to go to court to file a motion like the one the government was responding to here, I would note — and then pivoting to the actual issue:

Against this backdrop, the Defendant now, unironically, moves for sanctions against the Government for statements made by a Customs and Border Protection (CBP) agent who is not involved in the criminal case, either as a witness or an attorney, whose agency is not involved in the case, and who works in a completely unrelated jurisdiction

In a reply brief filed on December 31, Abrego Garcia’s lawyers were incredulous.

“Once again, the government has responded to a Court order with which it disagrees by pretending it doesn’t exist,” the reply began. “The government’s brief opposing that motion largely ignores the Order. The government focuses instead on the underlying Local Rule— which it claims is inapplicable—and contends, frivolously, that Mr. Bovino’s highly prejudicial, inflammatory statements were necessary to ‘protect’ the government from recent public statements made in connection with Mr. Abrego’s immigration proceedings.“

As to those claims from DOJ about Abrego, his immigration lawyers, and others, the reply was appropriately curt:

If the government incorrectly thought the Rule was violated, its remedy was to file its own motion, not to have a senior official engage in bad-faith self help. The government knows better, even if its hyperbolic opposition suggests otherwise.

The matter is now before Crenshaw for his decision on next steps.

This could be both the first case moving toward DOJ sanctions in the new year and the first court seeking to hold Bovino accountable in the new year.

It is not, however, likely to be the last time for either of those moves in 2026.