The Most Unqualified Nominee in a Generation

Why Emil Bove’s confirmation would mark a new low for the federal judiciary

We’ve seen some eyebrow-raising judicial nominations over the last decade—figures whose résumés were thin, whose views were extreme, whose temperaments seemed misaligned with lifetime judicial service. But Emil Bove, whose nomination the Senate Judiciary Committee takes up Thursday, isn’t just another unfit nominee. Bove is not merely a bad choice for the federal appellate bench. He is probably the most unqualified nominee in a generation, and certainly the most brazenly political.

That may sound hyperbolic—until you review the record. Even before last week’s bombshell developments, the case against Bove’s nomination to the Third Circuit was strong. And now, with the release of a whistleblower report that includes damning new details—and, crucially, corroborating documentation—the situation has moved from troubling to disqualifying.

Let’s start with what we already knew. Bove, who serves as Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General in the Department of Justice, assembled a checkered record in his time as a prosecutor, with stark warning signs of poor temperament and intemperate use of prosecutorial power.

In 2018, a group of prominent defense attorneys took the highly unusual step of sending a formal letter to the U.S. Attorney’s Office in the Southern District of New York, lodging complaints about Bove’s conduct during a federal trial. They described him as an overbearing and bullying presence in the courtroom—someone who steamrolled witnesses, antagonized defense counsel, and disregarded professional norms. The letter argued that Bove’s behavior went beyond zealous advocacy and crossed into personal intimidation, undermining the fairness of the proceedings. Defense attorneys described him as “a prosecutor version of a drunken driver” and “totally hung up on a power trip.”

He also fielded criticism from his colleagues in the office, who complained to supervisors about his overbearing treatment of subordinates and requested that he be removed from his supervisory role. The office opted not to take that step, but it was again an extremely unusual move for junior colleagues to make.

That brings us to his current tenure at DOJ, where he came in as Acting Deputy Attorney General after serving as Trump’s defense lawyer in his conviction on 34 felony counts in New York state courts. It seems clear that he arrived determined to elevate Donald Trump’s interests over any priority of the DOJ—and that he has been zealous in executing that objective.

Shortly after he reentered Main Justice, Bove muscled through the dismissal of the corruption case against New York City Mayor Eric Adams. The dismissal was transparently political—securing Adams’s cooperation at the expense of investigative integrity.

A letter Bove wrote to Acting U.S. Attorney Danielle Sassoon made clear that the directive came despite the merits of the case—that is, even though it was solid on both the facts and the law, the two guiding principles of DOJ prosecutions. Sassoon refused to comply and resigned, issuing an eloquent letter laying bare Bove’s conduct. The lead line prosecutor soon followed with an even more damning message: “I expect you will find someone who is enough of a fool, or enough of a coward, to file your motion [to dismiss Adams’s case]. But it was never going to be me.”

Bove then transferred the case to Main Justice’s Public Integrity Section, where five additional career prosecutors resigned over his insistence that it be dropped. He convened the remaining lawyers, locked them in a room, and—in a stunning display of raw political force—gave them one hour to pick two people to sign the dismissal. Choose someone to carry out the order … or be fired, he reportedly told them. Ultimately, two senior attorneys stepped up to shield their junior colleagues, and Bove signed the motion himself.

Those episodes alone, which are not subject to serious dispute, paint a vivid portrait of a candidate utterly lacking in integrity, temperament, and commitment to the rule of law. I’ve vetted dozens of candidates for federal judicial appointments. Revelations of this magnitude would have ended any nomination long before it reached the Senate.

But in Bove’s case, they’re not even close to the most serious charges. That distinction now belongs to a detailed whistleblower complaint and corroborating documentation. The complaint, filed by Erez Reuveni—a decorated career immigration litigator—describes how Bove encouraged DOJ attorneys to flout a federal court order, then lied about it under oath.

Reuveni had served in the Department for 15 years, until he was fired for truthfully answering a court’s question about whether the administration had mistakenly deported Kilmar Abrego Garcia. That candor, which the Department’s duty of honesty required, earned him suspension and then termination by AG Pam Bondi.

Reuveni’s account begins on March 14, shortly after Trump publicly disclosed a sealed executive order directing the immediate removal of a group of noncitizens—many with pending asylum claims or CAT protections—to El Salvador. The disclosure triggered an urgent DOJ meeting. When someone raised the possibility that a court might block the removals, Bove reportedly responded that DOJ might “just have to consider saying ‘fuck you’” to the court. He then made it even clearer: “The planes will land no matter what.”

The line prosecutors, reportedly disturbed by Bove’s comment, understood it as a directive to proceed regardless of how the court ruled—a course that could violate a judicial order and expose them to sanctions.

That fear turned out to be well-founded. The next day, Chief Judge Boasberg held an emergency hearing and issued an oral order: no removals could proceed without individualized findings consistent with the Convention Against Torture. But DOJ officials moved forward anyway. Their internal justification, according to sources, was twofold—and both came from Bove: first, that the oral order wasn’t yet enforceable because it hadn’t been written down; second, that the planes were already in the air and couldn’t turn back.

That’s legal twaddle. The law is clear: Boasberg retained jurisdiction over U.S. officials flying the planes regardless of location. Oral bench orders are binding. Judges issue them precisely to prevent the government from exploiting the delay before a written opinion is released. Bove’s notion that “we can ignore it unless it’s in writing” isn’t just wrong—it’s dangerous. It teaches executive agencies to treat court orders as optional, contingent, or irrelevant. That’s not a mere policy disagreement. It’s a full-on assault on the rule of law.

DOJ’s predictable response to the whistleblower report was to dismiss Reuveni as a “disgruntled former employee.” Meanwhile, Bove appeared before the Senate Judiciary Committee and swore he had never instructed anyone to violate a court order. As for the “fuck you” remark, he said he didn’t remember saying it.

Unfortunately for that strategy, Reuveni had the receipts.

He produced contemporaneous emails referencing the meeting in real time and documenting that multiple DOJ and DHS officials were alerted to Boasberg’s order. These aren’t hazy recollections or he-said/she-said narratives. They’re hard records—timestamped, consistent, and entirely credible.

The idea that Bove would forget telling a room full of DOJ lawyers to defy a federal judge—particularly in a high-stakes, widely attended meeting—strains credulity. More plausibly, it’s a calculated lie meant to provide plausible deniability if others came forward to confirm the quote.

Which, of course, they did. After Boasberg’s order circulated within DOJ, attorneys wrote emails referencing Bove’s “fuck you” comment and warning that a showdown with the courts was imminent.

The profanity is the least of it. The real issue is the message: that DOJ lawyers should ignore a court order. And that’s exactly how it was understood. According to the whistleblower, attorneys feared that Bove’s directive could lead to sanctions. Even more blunt was his unambiguous line: “The planes will land no matter what.”

In sum, beyond Bove’s already sordid record, we now have two distinct clusters of recent disqualifying conduct. First, the strong evidence that he directed DOJ attorneys to disregard a court order when it conflicted with Trump’s directive. Second, his misleading testimony to the Senate, including a memory lapse that defies belief and an active role in adopting lawless positions after Boasberg’s ruling.

If Reuveni’s allegations are accurate, there is absolutely no case for confirmation. Bove’s categorical denials only deepen the gravity of the situation. This isn’t a case of a youthful indiscretion or a long-ago controversial memo. It’s the conduct of a senior official who shows contempt for the courts, the Constitution, and the basic limits of executive power.

Adding to the case against Bove, some 75 former federal and state judges have now written to the Senate Judiciary Committee to express their "strong" opposition to Bove’s candidacy. The judges wrote, “[e]levating a nominee whose record reflects a pattern of misconduct, disregard for lawful authority, and political entanglement would not only compromise the integrity of the courts, it would set a dangerous precedent that judicial power may be wielded in service of personal fealty rather than constitutional duty.” That is a remarkable show of opposition from professionals of both parties who understand the essential duties of judging.

And yet the nomination lurches forward. Senate Republicans appear willing to ignore overwhelming evidence of disqualifying conduct and abdicate their constitutional advice and consent responsibility. One wonders what, if anything, would move them to say no. One thing is certain: you will not see them defending Bove on the record. They either will try to suggest the whistleblower’s allegations are not credible or, more likely, keep their heads buried deep in the sand.

Bove’s nomination is more than a test of his personal fitness; it’s a test of whether the Senate still takes its constitutional advice-and-consent role seriously, and whether it puts any value on qualifications, integrity, and truth. If the upper chamber greenlights a nominee with this kind of record—unapologetic about politicizing DOJ, evasive about violating court orders, and dismissive of basic legal norms and rules—it will have declared that only the President’s will matters.

Talk to you later.

Live with Paul Krugman: Budget Blowouts and Tariff Tantrums

The most dangerous man in government – except Trump