Trump Administration Sues Maryland Judges Over Detentions \ Newslooks \ Washington DC \ Mary Sidiqi \ Evening Edition \ The Trump administration has sued federal judges in Maryland over a court order that halts deportations of detained immigrants requesting hearings. The suit claims the order intrudes on presidential authority and violates Supreme Court precedent. This marks a new escalation in the administration’s ongoing legal battle with the judiciary over immigration enforcement.
Quick Looks
- Parties Involved: U.S. DOJ (via DHS) vs. Chief Judge George L. Russell III and Maryland’s federal bench.
- Key Dispute: Judges’ May order delaying removals until 4 p.m. on the second business day after habeas filings.
- Administration’s Argument: The automatic delay violates Supreme Court decisions and infringes constitutional executive power.
- Historical Context: Includes recent clashes over deportations such as Kilmar Abrego Garcia and South Sudan flights.
- What’s Next: DOJ seeks recusal of judges and reassignment to a federal judge from another state.
Deep Look
The Trump administration has launched a legal offensive against the U.S. District Court in Maryland, filing an extraordinary lawsuit that targets the court’s chief judge and its other sitting judges. The legal action, submitted in Baltimore, disputes a standing order that bars the immediate removal of detained immigrants who file habeas corpus petitions—legal documents that challenge the legality of their detention—seeking court hearings.
At the heart of the case is an order issued by Chief Judge George L. Russell III in May. His directive prohibits the federal government from deporting any immigrant detainee who has filed such a petition with the Maryland district court. The order provides a narrow window of protection, delaying removals until 4 p.m. on the second business day following the submission of the petition. The court’s intent is to preserve jurisdiction, ensure detainees can consult with legal counsel, and allow them to participate in the judicial process.
However, the Trump administration claims this mandate is an unconstitutional overreach that obstructs the executive branch’s lawful authority to enforce immigration policies. In its complaint, the administration argues that the Maryland court’s blanket injunction applies regardless of the urgency or credibility of the detainee’s legal claim and regardless of whether the court has jurisdiction over the case.
The lawsuit states: “Defendants’ automatic injunction issues whether or not the alien needs or seeks emergency relief, whether or not the court has jurisdiction over the alien’s claims, and no matter how frivolous the alien’s claims may be… And it does so in the immigration context, thus intruding on core Executive Branch powers.” The plaintiffs named are the United States and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, underscoring the high-level nature of this judicial challenge.
Chief Deputy Clerk David Ciambruschini of the Maryland court declined to comment on the case. Nonetheless, the court’s rationale is spelled out clearly in its order. Judge Russell emphasized that the aim was to uphold due process, maintain the court’s capacity to consider claims properly, and provide the government ample time to present its case. An amended version of the order acknowledged operational challenges, noting a flood of last-minute habeas petitions that led to “hurried and frustrating hearings,” where it was often difficult to determine the petitioners’ location or legal status.
The suit is just the latest escalation in a long-running conflict between the Trump administration and federal judges over immigration enforcement. Notably, Judge Paula Xinis—one of the Maryland judges named in the suit—previously ruled that the deportation of Kilmar Abrego Garcia to El Salvador was illegal. Despite court orders demanding Garcia’s return to the U.S., his attorneys allege that the administration delayed compliance and are pushing for contempt charges and monetary sanctions.
On the same day that Judge Russell’s order was filed, a similar issue emerged in a Boston federal courtroom. There, a judge ruled that the Trump administration violated a court order related to deportations to third-party countries by operating a deportation flight connected to South Sudan. These cases point to a broader trend of executive defiance or circumvention of judicial oversight in immigration enforcement matters.
Adding further complexity to the controversy, a whistleblower complaint from a former Justice Department attorney was made public the same day as the lawsuit. The complaint alleges that a senior official suggested the administration might need to ignore judicial orders in order to carry out the deportation of Venezuelan migrants accused of gang affiliations. This revelation amplifies concerns about the administration’s respect for judicial authority.
Attorney General Pam Bondi supported the lawsuit against Maryland’s judges, accusing the judiciary of obstructing the president’s policy agenda. “The American people elected President Trump to carry out his policy agenda: this pattern of judicial overreach undermines the democratic process and cannot be allowed to stand,” Bondi said in a statement.
The Trump administration is now asking that Maryland judges recuse themselves from the case, citing potential bias, and has requested that the case be reassigned to a federal judge from another state. This strategic move could determine whether the lawsuit is adjudicated by a neutral party or continues to unfold within the very court it is challenging.
This lawsuit stands as a significant marker in the ongoing tug-of-war between the executive and judicial branches of government over immigration authority. It showcases not only the administration’s determination to assert control over immigration policy but also the judiciary’s commitment to ensuring due process and legal oversight, even in politically sensitive cases.
Trump Administration Sues
You must Register or Login to post a comment.