Judge Skeptical of Trump Lawsuit Against All Maryland Judges/ Newslooks/ WASHINGTON/ J. Mansour/ Morning Edition/ A federal judge expressed skepticism over the Trump administration’s lawsuit against all 15 Maryland federal judges over an immigration deportation pause order. The administration claims the order hampers enforcement, while the judges’ lawyers say the suit threatens judicial independence. A ruling is expected by Labor Day.
Trump Lawsuit Against Maryland Judges Quick Looks
- Trump administration sues all 15 Maryland federal judges.
- Case challenges order delaying deportations for habeas petitioners.
- Judge Thomas Cullen questions necessity and scope of lawsuit.
- Defense calls suit “unprecedented” and threatens judicial independence.
- DOJ argues pause blocks immigration enforcement authority.
- Alternative legal avenues could have been pursued, lawyers say.
- Case stems from March deportation controversy involving El Salvador detainee.
- Ruling on dismissal or injunction expected by Labor Day.
Judge Skeptical of Trump Lawsuit Against All Maryland Judges
Deep Look
BALTIMORE — A federal judge signaled doubt Wednesday over the Trump administration’s extraordinary legal move to sue every sitting federal judge in Maryland, a first-of-its-kind lawsuit aimed at overturning an order that temporarily halts certain deportations.
U.S. District Judge Thomas Cullen, who is based in Virginia but assigned to the case because all Maryland judges are defendants, did not issue a ruling at the conclusion of the Baltimore hearing. But his pointed questions suggested he was unconvinced this sweeping action was necessary.
“I think you probably picked up on the fact that I have some skepticism,” Cullen told Justice Department attorney Elizabeth Themins Hedges.
The Order at the Center of the Dispute
The conflict began when Chief Maryland District Judge George L. Russell III issued an order pausing the deportation of immigrants who file habeas corpus petitions in Maryland’s federal courts. The pause lasts until 4 p.m. on the second business day after a petition is filed, giving courts time to review detention challenges before removal.
The Justice Department, which filed suit in June, argues the pause undercuts President Donald Trump’s ability to enforce immigration laws efficiently.
But attorneys representing the Maryland judges say the order protects judicial review, ensures petitioners can participate in hearings, allows access to legal counsel, and gives the government adequate time to respond.
Defense: Lawsuit Threatens Judicial Independence
Paul Clement, a prominent conservative lawyer and former solicitor general under President George W. Bush, argued the suit has no precedent and poses a dangerous separation-of-powers issue.
“The executive branch seeks to bring suit in the name of the United States against a co-equal branch of government,” Clement said.
He noted the administration could have appealed the order in an individual case rather than suing the entire bench.
Cullen pressed DOJ lawyers on whether such an approach might have been faster and questioned the potential consequences if the administration escalated this strategy to sue appellate courts or even the U.S. Supreme Court.
Justice Department’s Argument
Hedges, representing the Trump administration, insisted the lawsuit would not “open the floodgates” for similar actions against other courts. She said the government is “simply seeking relief” from a legal barrier that hinders immigration enforcement.
“The United States is a plaintiff here because the United States is being harmed,” she said.
If Cullen allows the case to proceed, the government is seeking a preliminary injunction to block Maryland’s federal judges from enforcing Russell’s order.
Why the Order Was Issued
In issuing the deportation pause, Russell cited a surge in after-hours habeas filings, which had led to “hurried and frustrating hearings” and difficulty determining petitioners’ locations and status. The order, he wrote, was designed to maintain court jurisdiction and allow for orderly proceedings.
The administration countered in court filings that such frustrations and scheduling concerns “do not give Defendants license to flout the law.”
Deportation Case That Fueled Tensions
Among the judges named is Paula Xinis, who earlier this year ruled the administration unlawfully deported Kilmar Abrego Garcia to El Salvador in March. The case became a flashpoint in Trump’s immigration crackdown.
Abrego Garcia says he was beaten and tortured in a Salvadoran megaprison before the administration brought him back to the U.S. He now faces human smuggling charges in Tennessee, which his attorneys describe as a post hoc attempt to justify the wrongful deportation.
Xinis has since barred the administration from taking Abrego Garcia into immediate immigration custody if he is released from jail while awaiting trial.
Next Steps
Cullen, a Trump appointee to the federal bench in 2019, said he would rule by Labor Day on whether to dismiss the case. His decision will determine whether the administration can continue pressing its challenge or whether Maryland’s pause on deportations in habeas cases will remain intact.
The dispute underscores the broader clash between the Trump administration’s aggressive immigration agenda and the judiciary’s role in reviewing and potentially delaying enforcement actions. If the lawsuit proceeds, it could test the boundaries of how far an administration can go in challenging the authority of the courts themselves.
You must Register or Login to post a comment.