Emil Bove, a senior Justice Department official and nominee for a circuit court judgeship, faced intense scrutiny during a Judiciary Committee hearing as he denied allegations that he instructed DOJ attorneys to violate court orders to support the administration’s agenda. The controversy emerged after a former DOJ official, Erez Reuveni, claimed that Bove suggested the department would defy court rulings to advance its aggressive deportation strategy. Reuven, who was fired in April, reported his allegations to both Congress and the Department’s inspector general, framing the claims as a whistleblower report.
Bove, speaking before the Senate Judiciary Committee, directly addressed the charges, stating, “I have never advised a Department of Justice attorney to violate a court order,” during the hearing on Wednesday. Democrats swiftly reacted, arguing that the allegations put Bove’s fitness for the lifetime judgeship in question, as the position requires adherence to judicial standards.
Additionally, Bove defended the controversial decision to abandon the corruption investigation into New York City Mayor Eric Adams, which led to a significant number of resignations within the DOJ. When asked about the case, Bove cited the decision by U.S. District Judge Dale Ho to dismiss the charges, arguing it reflected prosecutorial discretion. However, Ho’s ruling included criticism of the DOJ’s justification for abandoning the case, noting that the judge could not compel the department to prosecute.
Bove denied any suggestion of a quid pro quo between the administration and Adams, calling the notion “plain false.” Nevertheless, he ultimately acknowledged that “policy reasons” made the dismissal appropriate. Bove concluded by emphasizing his independence, stating, “I am not anybody’s henchman. I am a lawyer from a small town who never expected to be in an arena like this.” This defense came amid growing scrutiny of his role and the broader implications of the DOJ’s decisions.