Complaint No. 1779569958 - 1007549526

This complaint concerns prosecutorial misconduct arising from the federal criminal prosecution of Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia in United States v. Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia, No. 3:25-cr-00115, in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee. The attorneys identified in connection with this matter include Robert E. McGuire, Acting United States Attorney for the Middle District of Tennessee; Jacob Warren, Co-Director of DOJ Joint Task Force Vulcan; Christopher Eason, Co-Director of DOJ Joint Task Force Vulcan; Jeremy Franker, Deputy Director of DOJ Joint Task Force Vulcan; Jason Harley, DOJ Joint Task Force Vulcan; Aakash Singh, Associate Deputy Attorney General; Todd Blanche, Deputy Attorney General; Pam Bondi, Attorney General of the United States; Erez Reuveni, DOJ Office of Immigration Litigation; and August “Auggie” Flentje, DOJ Office of Immigration Litigation supervisor. The government’s own filing opposing Abrego Garcia’s motion to dismiss was submitted through McGuire, Warren, Eason, Franker, and Harley.

The misconduct alleged is not ordinary litigation error. It is the retaliatory use of federal criminal process after Abrego Garcia successfully challenged his wrongful removal from the United States to El Salvador. The District Court found that the prosecution was presumptively vindictive and that the government failed to rebut that presumption. The Court specifically found that, after the Supreme Court and the District of Maryland required the Executive Branch to facilitate Abrego Garcia’s return, DHS reopened a previously closed investigation into a November 2022 traffic stop, and DOJ thereafter charged Abrego Garcia in Tennessee.

The Court’s findings create a substantial Brady/Giglio concern because the charging decision itself was found to be infected by retaliatory taint. The Court determined that the investigation was reopened only after Abrego Garcia succeeded in vindicating his legal rights, that the government’s claimed “new evidence” was not new as a matter of law, and that the prosecutor’s subjective assertion of good faith did not cure the retaliatory defect. The Court concluded that, absent Abrego Garcia’s successful lawsuit, the government would not have brought the prosecution.

Robert E. McGuire is specifically implicated because he served as Acting United States Attorney, signed the government’s opposition to the vindictive-prosecution motion, and carried the tainted investigation through to indictment. Although McGuire asserted that he acted independently and in good faith, the Court rejected the independence theory. The Court found that McGuire was not objectively independent, that his superiors Blanche and Singh presented evidence to him to charge Abrego Garcia, that Singh supervised him until indictment, and that McGuire’s testimony showed dependence on Main Justice for the timing and return of Abrego Garcia to the United States.

Jacob Warren, Christopher Eason, Jeremy Franker, and Jason Harley are implicated as DOJ Joint Task Force Vulcan attorneys who appeared on the government’s filing defending the prosecution against allegations of vindictive and selective prosecution. Their participation ties Task Force Vulcan to the defense of a prosecution later found to be retaliatory, tainted, and unsupported by an objectively independent charging process. Their inclusion is warranted because prosecutors who join, defend, or continue a tainted prosecution assume responsibility for the integrity of the position advanced to the Court, especially where the prosecution depends upon evidence developed through retaliatory governmental action.

Aakash Singh is directly implicated by the Court’s findings concerning Main Justice control and oversight. The Court found that Singh’s involvement tied the indictment to Deputy Attorney General Blanche’s vindictive motive, that Singh emailed McGuire about Hernandez-Reyes before McGuire had heard of that witness, and that Singh’s oversight of McGuire and his team continued until the indictment was returned. The Court further found that Singh delivered the star witness to McGuire and that McGuire did not conduct the kind of independent review necessary to purge the taint.

Todd Blanche is implicated because the Court found that his public statements directly tied the reopened investigation to Abrego Garcia’s Maryland litigation and the Executive Branch’s need to respond to court orders requiring Abrego Garcia’s return. The Court found that Blanche’s statements confirmed that the criminal investigation was reopened because the Judicial Branch required the Executive Branch to facilitate Abrego Garcia’s return, and that the investigation was marked by retaliatory taint from that point forward.

Pam Bondi is included because, as Attorney General, she was the highest-ranking DOJ official in the chain of authority over the Department and the attorneys involved. Her inclusion is also material because the broader record reflects DOJ pressure on attorneys to zealously advance the administration’s position even where the government’s underlying conduct involved an acknowledged wrongful removal. Reporting indicates that after DOJ attorney Erez Reuveni acknowledged the erroneous removal in court, Bondi publicly warned that DOJ attorneys must zealously advocate for the United States and that attorneys who failed to do so would face consequences.

Erez Reuveni and August “Auggie” Flentje are included in the complaint as material DOJ attorneys connected to the underlying removal litigation and as witnesses to the government’s internal handling of the Abrego Garcia matter. Reuveni reportedly acknowledged in court that Abrego Garcia’s removal was erroneous and was placed on administrative leave afterward; Flentje, his supervisor, was also reportedly placed on leave. Their inclusion is relevant to the Brady List record because their treatment demonstrates the institutional pressure surrounding the case and provides context for why later prosecutors may have been unable or unwilling to make neutral, candid, and independent charging decisions. On the present public record, they should not be described as the attorneys who committed the vindictive prosecution unless additional evidence shows their participation in the retaliatory charging decision.

The Brady/Giglio significance is substantial. A prosecutor who initiates, supervises, defends, or continues a criminal prosecution for retaliatory purposes has created impeachment material bearing directly on credibility, bias, motive, abuse of authority, and willingness to misuse governmental power. Such conduct is not merely administrative misconduct; it affects the truth-seeking function of criminal proceedings. It creates an affirmative disclosure obligation in any case where the involved attorneys, agencies, task forces, or cooperating witnesses are relied upon by the government. Where a court has found that the prosecution was tainted by vindictiveness, the presumption of regularity is no longer adequate. The burden shifts to the government to make complete disclosure, identify all affected cases, disclose internal communications and supervisory approvals, and provide notice to defendants whose liberty was affected by the same prosecutors, offices, task forces, or investigative agents.