Dan Bovino’s Comments About U.S. Attorney Daniel Rosen’s Shabbat Observance

The New York Times reports that Dan Bonvino, the Border Patrol Field Leader, criticized sabbath observance by Daniel Rosen, the U.S. Attorney for the District of Minnesota:

A day before six career federal prosecutors resigned in protest over the Justice Department’s handling of the killing of Renee Good in Minneapolis, lawyers in the office had a conversation with Gregory Bovino, the Border Patrol field leader, that left them deeply unsettled.

According to several people with knowledge of the telephone conversation, which took place on Jan. 12, Mr. Bovino made derisive remarks about the faith of the U.S. attorney in Minnesota, Daniel N. Rosen. Mr. Rosen is an Orthodox Jew and observes Shabbat, a period of rest between Friday and Saturday nights that often includes refraining from using electronic devices.

Mr. Bovino, who has been the face of the Trump administration’s immigration crackdown, used the term “chosen people” in a mocking way, according to the people with knowledge of the call. He also asked, sarcastically, whether Mr. Rosen understood that Orthodox Jewish criminals don’t take weekends off, the people said.

Mr. Bovino had requested the meeting with Mr. Rosen to press the Minnesota office to work more aggressively to seek criminal charges against people Mr. Bovino believed were unlawfully impeding the work of his immigration agents.

Mr. Rosen delegated the call to a deputy. During the call, with a handful of prosecutors listening in, Mr. Bovino complained that Mr. Rosen had been unreachable for portions of the weekend because of Shabbat. Mr. Bovino’s remarks followed his complaints about having difficulty reaching Mr. Rosen.

I’ll assume this report is accurate.

Bovino’s comments, are deeply unfortunate. For an administration that is so deeply committed to fighting antisemitism and protecting religious liberty, I don’t see how these sorts of remarks can stand. Indeed, Trump’s daughter and son-in-law are sabbath observant Jews. Bovino’s wisecrack about the “chosen people” reflects an even-deeper prejudice. The details might come out in some future Giglio proceeding.

Still, I think Bovino’s comments reflects a far greater issue. Some people have a very hard time understanding why observant Jews follow certain religious beliefs. The most obvious example are the dietary rules, known as the laws of Kosher. People simply cannot understand why Jews will not eat pig or lobster. They get annoyed when we ask whether some dish has chicken or pork in it; as if it makes a difference? Moreover, they cannot fathom why chicken, which is an kosher animal, cannot be eaten in a non-Kosher restaurant. (The rules for slaughtering and preparing kosher meat are extremely complex.)

Another example is the rules on shabbat. The biblical prohibition on working during the sabbath has many practical consequences. Observant Jews cannot drive and cannot use electronic devices. They can’t even write with a pen or pencil. They can’t even flip on a light switch. These rules do not only apply on Shabbat (Friday night till Saturday night). These rules apply during approximately eleven days every year where there is an observance that prohibits work. But even well-meaning people do not understand.

Here, I quote from an amicus brief filed by the Jewish Coalition for Religious Liberty in Catholic Charities v. Wisconsin Labor & Industry Review Commission:

There is no shortage of cases to illustrate the point that courts misunderstand and misapply even basic practices of Judaism. In one case concerning the reach of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, a judge gave the example of a law requiring someone to “turn on a light switch every day” as a statute that could not conceivably impose a substantial burden on religion. Oral Argument at 1:00:40-50, E. Tex. Baptist Univ. v. Burwell, 793 F.3d 449 (5th Cir. 2015) (No. 14-20112), vacated and remanded, 578 U.S. 403 (2016). However, he was mistaken. That requirement would substantially burden Orthodox Jewish religious practices. On the Sabbath, Jews are forbidden from kindling flames, and Orthodox rabbis agree that this prohibition extends to turning on a light switch. See Exodus 35:3; see also Aryeh Citron, Electricity on Shabbat, Chabad.org, https://tinyurl.com/mrx4ynkk. The judge certainly did not intend to demean Judaism or suggest that Jewish practices should not qualify for protection. He was simply unaware of a practice that is central to the life of Orthodox Jews.

I doubt Bovino is familiar with any of these rules. He simply exhibits frustration with the U.S. Attorney not agreeing to meet with him on Shabbat. He is not alone.

I can think of at least one other recent example where a member of the executive branch expressed frustration that an observant Jew was not responsive on Shabbat.

Think back to Friday, March 28, 2025. That afternoon, Judge Murphy in Boston (where else?) issued a nationwide injunction blocking the government from removing three aliens to South Sudan. This is the case that would become DHS v. D.V.D. That evening, Erez Reuveni, an employee in the Department of Justice, frantically tried to reach certain individuals at DOJ to learn whether aliens were being staged for removal. He worried that the government would not comply with the purported universal injunction. Reuveni would describe his process in his whistleblower complaint:

With this clear disconnect, it was evident to Mr. Reuveni that DHS had received direction contrary to the guidance OIL had provided concerning the scope of the injunction. Mr. Reuveni had attempted to contact Ensign and Flentje multiple times by phone between 10:40 p.m. and 12:04 a.m., and [Acting Assistant Attorney General Jacob] Roth via email, but no one answered.40

FN40: 40 Ensign was teleworking from Arizona as he often did and later told Mr. Reuveni that he missed the calls because his phone was silenced.

A footnote explains why Ensign did not respond, but the implication is that Roth simply ignored the calls. I can confidently state that Jacob Roth (a longtime friend) was not checking his phone on Friday night because it was Shabbat. I suspect Reuveni, based on his background, knew about Roth’s observance.  Roth was my co-counsel for the JCRL amicus brief I referenced above.

This sort of conflict happens a lot. Jewish students, in particular, often have a difficult time with deadlines, exams, and other extra-curricular assignments that fall on Shabbat or holidays. It is not intentional. People simply do not consider Jewish observance. For whatever reason, briefs tend to be due by the close of business on Friday. In winter months, that time usually falls after the beginning of shabbat. And it would be reckless to risk filing a brief when the computer needs to shut before the filing deadline. Indeed, during the Foreign Emoluments litigation, Seth Barrett Tillman and I had a string of briefs that were all due during Jewish holidays. (If you ever wondered why we filed some of our briefs early, now you know).

Let me take a step back. I have been giving a lot of thought to antisemitism of late.  I now have to explain this pernicious concept to my young children. I am convinced that one of the reasons why antisemitism exists in every generation is because our customs are simply difficult to understand, and make us unable to interact on other people’s timelines. Why can’t Jews do anything on Friday night to Saturday night? Why can’t Jews eat the same foods we eat? Why can’t they break bread with us at our table? Why are they so different? To be sure, all religions have unique customs, but Judaism is particularly rigorous in how these rules are enforced. Other faiths are more permissive. These rules have the necessary consequence of excluding Jews from interacting with non-Jews in many fashions. I am developing this theme for a future writing. Stay tuned.