Poli Alert Politics & Civics
Related Articles
In an extraordinary legal move, the Trump administration has filed a lawsuit against all 15 federal judges in the state of Maryland, challenging a court order that temporarily blocks the deportation of immigrants who file habeas corpus petitions seeking to challenge their removal.
At the center of the dispute is a May order by Chief Judge George L. Russell III, which halts the deportation of detainees for two business days after they file for legal review. The order aims to preserve petitioners’ ability to participate in court proceedings and consult with attorneys before being removed from the U.S.
The Justice Department calls the order “lawless” and a “judicial overreach”, arguing it violates Supreme Court precedent and improperly impedes the president’s authority to carry out immigration enforcement.
“This pattern of judicial overreach undermines the democratic process and cannot be allowed to stand,” Attorney General Pamela Bondi said in a statement Wednesday. “President Trump’s executive authority has been undermined since the first hours of his presidency by an endless barrage of injunctions designed to halt his agenda.”
Unprecedented Legal Action
Legal experts say it is highly unusual — if not unheard of — for the federal government to sue an entire district court bench.
“It’s extraordinary,” said Loyola Law School professor Laurie Levenson. “And it’s escalating DOJ’s effort to challenge federal judges.”
Rather than appeal Judge Russell’s order through the normal judicial channels, the Department of Justice (DOJ) is suing all Maryland district judges and demanding they recuse themselves, requesting that a judge from outside the state be assigned to hear the case.
Growing Clash Between Executive and Judiciary
The lawsuit represents the latest escalation in a broader showdown between President Trump and the federal judiciary, as courts across the country have pushed back against his immigration policies.
In one recent case, Trump even called for the impeachment of a federal judge who ordered deported immigrants returned to the U.S., prompting a rare public rebuke from Chief Justice John Roberts, who warned that impeachment is not an appropriate response to legal disagreement.
Among the judges named in the lawsuit is Judge Paula Xinis, who previously ruled that the administration’s deportation of Kilmar Abrego Garcia was illegal. DOJ later admitted the deportation had been a mistake. The case sparked internal controversy after a government attorney, Erez Reuveni, was fired and filed a whistleblower complaint, alleging DOJ leaders ignored court orders and withheld critical information from judges. DOJ denies those claims.
Abrego Garcia has since been returned to the U.S. and now faces smuggling charges.
Judges Responded to DOJ Tactics
Judge Russell’s original and amended orders aimed to address what he described as a surge of after-hours habeas petitions that led to rushed and confusing court proceedings, often without clear information on petitioners’ whereabouts.
James Sample, a constitutional law expert at Hofstra University, said the court was responding to DOJ practices that seemed designed to “preempt judicial review” by rapidly moving or deporting detainees before legal filings could be reviewed.
“The judges here didn’t ask to be put in this unenviable position,” Sample told the Associated Press. “Faced with imperfect options, they made a cautious, reasonable choice to modestly check an executive branch determined to circumvent impartial process.”
What Comes Next?
The DOJ’s lawsuit could face long odds. Legal scholars suggest the move may be more symbolic or political, intended to highlight the administration’s frustration with judicial interference, rather than a viable legal path to overturn the court’s order.
For now, the removal delay for immigrants filing habeas petitions in Maryland remains in place — but the lawsuit sets the stage for another major test of executive power, judicial independence, and immigration enforcement in the courts.
The Maryland district court declined comment, citing ongoing litigation. The Trump administration continues to pursue aggressive deportation policies, even as courtroom challenges mount.
