In an extraordinary legal maneuver, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) took the unprecedented step of suing all 15 active federal district court judges in Maryland on Tuesday. This remarkable legal battle underscores the escalating tension between the executive branch and the federal judiciary. The suit challenges a standing order, issued by Chief Judge George L. Russell III in May, that automatically grants a 48-hour deportation halt when detained immigrants submit habeas corpus petitions.
The Trump administration asserts that this blanket policy infringes on constitutional norms and Supreme Court guidelines that mandate individual case assessments instead of overarching judicial orders. Officials argue that the broad judicial mandates surpass the judges' rightful authority and impede the executive branch's immigration control efforts.
Filed in Maryland’s U.S. District Court, the complaint brands the judicial policy as an overextension that unlawfully restrains the government’s immigration enforcement capabilities. The Trump administration views the order as a direct affront to the independence of the federal judiciary and its function in immigration enforcement.
This policy, which requires court clerks to issue immediate injunctions to maintain the status quo for detained immigrants who file habeas petitions, is, according to the administration, a defiance of established legal standards. It creates an automatic barrier to immigration enforcement operations, hindering the region's deportation activities aligned with President Trump's immigration agenda.
The administration's legal action requests that all named judges step aside from the case due to potential conflicts of interest, as they are defendants in their own court. They propose either an external judge or a transfer to another federal district to oversee the proceedings.
Attorney General Pam Bondi has openly criticized the Maryland order, characterizing it as a manifestation of widespread judicial resistance to Trump administration policies. Her statement suggests a determined effort to confront similar judicial orders nationally.
Constitutional law experts and legal scholars are watching closely, as this case ventures into uncharted legal waters with significant ramifications for federal court operations. No previous instance of the Justice Department suing an entire court exists in American legal history, marking this as a historic event.
The Maryland court’s order arose as a response to an influx of habeas corpus petitions during non-business hours, which strained the court system’s scheduling capabilities. Court administrators reported challenges in managing the increased caseload and ensuring due legal representation for detainees.
Officials argue that the 48-hour delay allows court personnel adequate time to compile necessary documentation and liaise with immigration authorities about specific detention circumstances. This lawsuit aligns with a broader legal strategy, as the Trump administration also appeals to the Supreme Court against a Massachusetts judge’s injunction blocking deportations to South Sudan. The Solicitor General labeled the Massachusetts ruling as an act of defiance, further intensifying the legal confrontation.
