HISTORIC SHOWDOWN Over Court Powers!
The Department of Justice has filed a historic lawsuit against all 15 Maryland federal judges, igniting a constitutional clash over whether courts can pause deportations while reviewing immigration detention cases.
At a Glance
• DOJ challenges a Maryland District Court order that pauses deportations for two days after habeas petitions are filed
• Lawsuit targets all 15 sitting federal judges in Maryland, an unprecedented move
• Judges argue the pause protects due process and judicial review rights
• DOJ claims the order unlawfully interferes with executive immigration enforcement powers
• Decision from an outside federal judge is expected by Labor Day 2025
Constitutional Showdown in Maryland
On May 28, 2025, Chief Judge George L. Russell III of the U.S. District Court for Maryland issued a standing order requiring an automatic two-day pause on deportations after the filing of a habeas corpus petition. The measure was intended to maintain the status quo and give judges time to consider the petitions before removal occurs.
The Trump administration responded with an extraordinary lawsuit naming every active judge in Maryland’s federal district court as a defendant. DOJ attorneys argue the order infringes on executive branch authority under federal immigration law, particularly the Attorney General’s discretion in enforcing removal orders.
Watch now: DOJ vs. Maryland Judges — A Legal Standoff · YouTube
Judges Defend Administrative Authority
Maryland’s federal bench, represented by attorney Paul Clement, has defended the order as a legitimate procedural safeguard. Clement characterized the pause as a “modest administrative measure” that ensures individuals facing deportation have meaningful access to judicial review.
Chief Judge Russell stated that the order is designed to avoid situations where a deportation occurs before a court can act on a petition, potentially rendering judicial review meaningless. The judges argue that managing court procedures, including temporary pauses in government action, is a core judicial function.
DOJ Presses Case for Executive Power
During the August 13 hearing, DOJ attorney Elizabeth Hedges told Presiding Judge Thomas Cullen that the Maryland order “imposes an unauthorized blanket restriction” on immigration enforcement operations. The administration sees the standing order as part of a broader pattern of judicial interference in immigration matters, undermining the federal government’s ability to implement removal orders efficiently.
The DOJ’s position is that while courts can hear challenges to detention, they cannot issue automatic delays without evaluating the merits of each case. Officials warn that such delays could enable individuals with final removal orders to evade deportation.
Decision Could Set Precedent
Judge Cullen, from the Western District of Virginia, has been tasked with deciding the case due to the conflict of interest in Maryland’s federal court. Observers noted his skepticism toward the DOJ’s argument that executive power overrides judicial administrative orders.
A ruling is expected by Labor Day 2025. Legal experts say the decision could shape the boundaries of inter-branch authority for years to come, clarifying whether federal courts can impose blanket procedural pauses in the face of executive enforcement actions.
If Judge Cullen sides with the DOJ, it could expand executive discretion in immigration cases and limit courts’ procedural tools. If he rules for the Maryland judges, it would affirm the judiciary’s ability to maintain short-term protections while reviewing cases, reinforcing the principle of judicial independence.
Sources