Judge Dismisses Trump Admin Lawsuit Against Maryland Federal Judges/ Newslooks/ WASHINGTON/ J. Mansour/ Morning Edition/ A federal judge dismissed the Trump administration’s unprecedented lawsuit against all Maryland federal judges over an order pausing deportations. Judge Thomas Cullen ruled the case violated constitutional tradition and judicial independence. The dispute highlights rising tensions between the Trump administration and the federal judiciary over immigration enforcement.
Trump Lawsuit Against Maryland Judges Quick Looks
- Case dismissed: Judge Thomas Cullen throws out lawsuit against all Maryland federal judges
- Unprecedented move: Trump administration sued judiciary over deportation order
- Order at issue: Chief Judge George L. Russell III paused deportations for 48 hours after habeas petitions filed
- Justice Department claim: Pause violates Supreme Court precedent, obstructs Trump’s immigration powers
- Court’s reasoning: Dismissing suit protects constitutional separation of powers
- Judge Cullen’s stance: Called lawsuit incompatible with rule of law
- Maryland judges’ defense: Accused administration of trying to curb judicial oversight of immigration
- Prominent attorneys involved: Paul Clement for judges; Elizabeth Hedges for Justice Department
- Context: Lawsuit filed amid Trump’s broader push for mass deportations
- Flashpoint case: Paula Xinis ruling on Kilmar Abrego Garcia deportation fueled tensions
Deep Look: Federal Judge Dismisses Trump Lawsuit Against Maryland Judiciary
BALTIMORE — August 26, 2025 – A federal court has dismissed the Trump administration’s extraordinary lawsuit against the entire federal judiciary of Maryland, rejecting an attempt to overturn a deportation order pause that administration officials argued was obstructing immigration enforcement.
The ruling, issued Tuesday by U.S. District Judge Thomas Cullen, rejected the Justice Department’s case as constitutionally flawed and institutionally dangerous.
“To allow this lawsuit to proceed would run counter to overwhelming precedent, depart from longstanding constitutional tradition, and offend the rule of law,” Cullen wrote.
He added that the Constitution’s framers deliberately created three co-equal branches of government, which “may occasionally clash” but must resolve disputes in ways that respect judicial independence.
Why the Lawsuit Was Filed
The unusual lawsuit stemmed from a directive signed by Chief Judge George L. Russell III of Maryland’s District Court. His order blocked the immediate deportation of migrants who had filed habeas corpus petitions, requiring removals to be delayed until 4 p.m. on the second business day after filing.
The order sought to:
- Ensure petitioners could participate in court hearings
- Provide access to legal representation
- Give the government time to present its case
The Justice Department argued the pause violated Supreme Court precedent and hindered the president’s constitutional authority to enforce immigration laws. Officials framed the order as another instance of judicial overreach slowing Trump’s deportation agenda.
Judge Cullen’s Skepticism
During an August hearing, Cullen expressed doubts about the lawsuit’s sweeping nature, asking why the administration sued all 15 federal judges in Maryland instead of pursuing traditional legal remedies like appeals in individual cases.
In Tuesday’s ruling, Cullen reiterated that suing an entire federal bench “in the name of the United States” against a co-equal branch of government was incompatible with constitutional structure.
Legal Teams Clash
Representing the Maryland judges, Paul Clement, a prominent conservative attorney and former solicitor general under President George W. Bush, argued the lawsuit was designed to weaken judicial authority in immigration matters.
“There really is no precursor for this suit,” Clement told the court. He noted that other avenues existed for the administration, such as appealing in specific habeas cases.
For the government, Elizabeth Themins Hedges countered that the lawsuit was necessary to lift an order that directly harmed enforcement.
“The United States is a plaintiff here because the United States is being harmed,” she said.
Broader Immigration Context
The lawsuit was part of Trump’s wider immigration crackdown, which has increasingly clashed with federal courts.
In an amended explanation, Judge Russell noted Maryland courts were being flooded with after-hours habeas petitions, leading to chaotic hearings where the government struggled to provide accurate detainee information.
Justice Department attorneys accused judges of prioritizing convenience, writing that “frustration and a desire for greater convenience do not give Defendants license to flout the law.”
Flashpoints and Fallout
Among the Maryland judges named was Judge Paula Xinis, who in March ruled the Trump administration unlawfully deported Kilmar Abrego Garcia to El Salvador. That case became a rallying point for critics of Trump’s immigration policies after Garcia alleged torture in a Salvadoran megaprison.
Trump has frequently railed against judicial rulings blocking his immigration agenda, at times calling for the impeachment of federal judges. In July, his Justice Department even filed a misconduct complaint against a Washington judge who ordered deportation flights turned around.
What’s Next
The White House offered no immediate comment on Tuesday’s dismissal. Legal analysts say the administration could attempt to appeal Cullen’s ruling, but the sweeping rejection makes further success unlikely.
For now, the decision reinforces judicial independence and signals limits to executive overreach in immigration policy.
You must Register or Login to post a comment.