Judge Now Dismisses Trump Admin Lawsuit Against Maryland Judges

In a significant rebuke to the Trump administration’s aggressive immigration enforcement tactics, a federal judge on Tuesday dismissed an extraordinary lawsuit filed by the Department of Justice (DOJ) against every one of the 15 federal judges in Maryland.

The suit challenged a court-issued standing order designed to prevent hasty deportations, marking the latest flashpoint in ongoing tensions between the executive branch and the judiciary.

U.S. District Judge Thomas T. Cullen, a Trump appointee who typically presides in Virginia but was specially assigned to the case due to the inherent conflict involving Maryland’s judges, ruled that the administration’s approach of directly suing the judges was improper and unconstitutional.

In his 39-page opinion, Cullen described the litigation as “novel and potentially calamitous,” emphasizing that it threatened the foundational separation of powers in the U.S. government.

The controversy stems from a standing order issued on May 21, 2025, by Chief Judge George L. Russell III of the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, with an update following a week later.

This directive outlines procedures for handling immigration cases where individuals face an “imminent risk of deportation.”

Specifically, it mandates a temporary two-business-day stay on deportations to allow judges time to review cases and ensure due process.

The Trump administration, through the DOJ, argued that Russell exceeded his authority by implementing what they viewed as a “blanket injunction” against executive actions.

They contended that the order interferes with the government’s ability to swiftly execute deportations without individualized assessments of each immigrant’s claims, potentially undermining national security and immigration policy priorities.

The lawsuit, filed earlier this year, named all 15 Maryland federal judges as defendants, an unprecedented move that Cullen noted could lead to a “constitutional free-for-all” if allowed to proceed.

Key Rulings

Cullen’s decision did not delve into the merits of whether Russell had the authority to issue the standing order.

Instead, he focused on procedural and constitutional barriers to the lawsuit itself.

He concluded that the executive branch lacked legal standing to sue the judges and that judicial immunity protects them from such actions.

“Much as the Executive fights the characterization, a lawsuit by the executive branch of government against the judicial branch for the exercise of judicial power is not ordinary,” Cullen wrote in his ruling.

He added, “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.”

This aligns with remarks Cullen made during an August 13, 2025, hearing in Baltimore, where he signaled skepticism toward the DOJ’s strategy.

Broader Context

The Maryland standing order emerged amid the Trump administration’s renewed push to accelerate deportations, including measures that critics argue bypass due process.

Supporters of the administration’s policies maintain that such expedited removals are essential for border security and managing immigration backlogs, while opponents highlight risks of wrongful deportations.

A prominent example cited in the case is that of Kilmar Campos Abrego Garcia, a Salvadoran national who was allegedly wrongly deported to his home country despite ongoing legal proceedings.

This Maryland-originated incident has drawn national attention, underscoring concerns about the human impact of rapid enforcement actions.

From the administration’s perspective, the order represents judicial overreach into executive functions, potentially delaying lawful deportations and straining resources.

Judicial advocates, however, see it as a necessary safeguard to uphold constitutional rights, preventing irreversible harm from premature removals.

In a pointed footnote, Cullen addressed the Trump administration’s pattern of publicly criticizing judges who rule against its policies, calling it “unprecedented and unfortunate.”

He noted that while inter-branch tension is inherent in the U.S. system, the executive’s efforts to “smear and impugn individual judges” erode public trust in the judiciary.

Neither the DOJ nor representatives for the Maryland judges provided immediate comments on the ruling.

However, court filings indicate the government intends to appeal the decision, potentially escalating the matter to higher courts.

Implications for Immigration Policy and Separation of Powers

This dismissal highlights escalating conflicts between the Trump administration and federal courts on immigration matters, echoing disputes from Trump’s first term.

Legal experts suggest the ruling reinforces judicial independence, but it leaves open the question of the standing order’s validity, which could be challenged through alternative channels, such as individual case appeals.

As the administration pursues its appeal, the case could set precedents for how courts manage immigration disputes amid polarized national debates.

Stakeholders from both sides—immigration hawks emphasizing enforcement efficiency and reform advocates stressing due process—will be watching closely for broader impacts on deportation practices nationwide.

Trump is Now Being Accused of Getting Epstein Killed

Visit the Homepage for our extensive library of news, or read news for you below.

Join us on Facebook and X.