Trump administration’s lawsuit against MD judges dismissed

The Trump administration’s unprecedented lawsuit against Maryland’s federal judges and the court itself was dismissed on Tuesday.

U.S. District Judge Thomas Cullen, of the Western District of Virginia, who was brought in to hear the case because all of Maryland’s judges were named as defendants, granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss on Tuesday, just short of two weeks after a hearing in which he expressed skepticism about the administration’s legal arguments.

The administration sued after George Russell III, Maryland’s chief judge, issued a standing order in May pausing the removal of immigrants in Maryland for about two days after they file petitions for writ of habeas corpus. The order, which was not tied to any specific case, was intended to preserve due process and the court’s jurisdiction. It followed the administration’s removal of Kilmar Abrego Garcia and hundreds of Venezuelans to a notorious Salvadoran prison without due process.

The complaint by the U.S. Department of Justice claimed the order “robs the Executive Branch of its most scarce resource: time to put its policies into effect.”

Cullen, a Trump appointee, wrote that the lawsuit against all 15 judges and the entire court was part of a “concerted effort by the Executive to smear and impugn individual judges who rule against it,” and said he agreed with the judges’ case “nearly across the board.”

He ruled that the judges and the court were immune from such suits and that the administration lacked standing and failed to identify a proper cause of action.

He wrote that the two-day pause “appears considerably more modest” than similar two-week pauses issued in certain cases by several federal appellate courts.

He expressed openness to the idea that Russell may have overstepped his authority in issuing the order, but wrote that the way the administration challenged it presented a threat to the separation of powers. The order could have been challenged by appealing its use in any individual case, or to the Judicial Council of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.

“Any fair reading of the legal authorities cited by Defendants leads to the ineluctable conclusion that this court has no alternative but to dismiss,” he wrote. “To hold otherwise would run counter to overwhelming precedent, depart from longstanding constitutional tradition, and offend the rule of law.”

“All of this isn’t to say that the Executive is without any recourse; far from it,” he continued. “If the Executive truly believes that Defendants’ standing orders violate the law, it should avail itself of the tried-and-true recourse available to all federal litigants: It should appeal.”

The Trump administration filed a notice of appeal.

At the Aug. 13 hearing, Cullen acknowledged that however he ruled, his decision would be appealed.

The judges are represented by the Northern Virginia firm of Clement & Murphy, co-founded by Paul Clement, who served as solicitor general under President George W. Bush.

The DOJ and Clement & Murphy did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

Cullen also took issue with the administration’s argument that the order “interfer(ed) with Plaintiffs’ sovereign prerogative to enforce immigration laws.” He wrote that the executive is not the sovereign in the United States because the Constitution balances power between the branches.

“The coordinate branches together form the government of the United States of America,” he wrote, “and together they are the sovereign in this Nation.”

“Whatever the merits of its grievance with the judges of the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, the Executive must find a proper way to raise those concerns.”

The Maryland State Bar Association — which filed an amicus brief in support of the judges which more than 200 lawyers, firms and advocacy groups co-signed — said Cullen’s decision “supports constitutional tradition and upholding the rule of law.”

Three immigration lawyers also praised the decision.

Abraham Carpio, a Hyattsville-based immigration lawyer who has filed habeas petitions for clients, said Russell’s order was “permissible and correct,” and that the lawsuit “was ill founded and had no merit at inception.”

“Undocumented immigrants are being detained, held without bond and swiftly removed arguably without due process, and allegedly under extremely malicious circumstances that would not be justifiable under the Fourth Amendment on an American citizen,” Carpio wrote in an email.

James Montana, based in Falls Church, Virginia, said the appellate courts’ two-week deportation pauses were “relatively undisputed and unremarkable heretofore,” because the government traditionally would wait until an immigrant’s appeal played out before deporting them. The Trump administration has often disregarded immigration court orders barring removal — such as in Abrego Garcia’s case — prompting plaintiffs to demand due process in federal district court.

“The law hasn’t changed, but the executive branch’s approach to enforcement has changed,” he said. “I think the government’s assertion in this case is absolutely wild.”

And Nicole Whitaker, a Baltimore-based lawyer, said, “This ruling makes clear that federal judges not only have the authority but the duty to prevent immigrants in Maryland from being deported before their cases are heard.”

“The lawsuit was an extraordinary attempt to punish judges for doing their jobs, and its dismissal restores balance between the courts and the executive branch,” she continued. “At the end of the day, this isn’t about politics — it’s about ensuring our courts can check the government before someone’s life is irreversibly altered.”

This story has been updated.