In a dramatic courtroom showdown on August 13, 2025, a Trump-appointed federal judge expressed significant doubts about the Justice Department’s extraordinary lawsuit targeting every federal judge in Maryland.
The case centers on a standing order aimed at ensuring due process for migrants facing deportation, highlighting escalating tensions between the executive branch and the judiciary under President Donald Trump’s second term.
The Trump administration filed the lawsuit on June 25, 2025, naming all 15 federal district judges in Maryland as defendants, along with the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland itself.
This unusual legal action stems from a standing order issued in May 2025 by Chief Judge George L. Russell III, which automatically halts deportations for two business days after a migrant files a habeas corpus petition challenging their detention.
The order was designed to address a surge in habeas petitions from detained migrants, ensuring they have time to access hearings, legal counsel, and due process amid rapid deportation efforts.
The Justice Department, led by Attorney General Pam Bondi, argues that this constitutes “judicial overreach,” interfering with the executive branch’s authority over immigration enforcement and undermining the democratic process.
The complaint describes the order as “lawless” and automatic injunctions that disregard case-specific merits, potentially delaying removals arranged through complex diplomacy.
This lawsuit echoes broader frustrations within the Trump administration, which has faced numerous court injunctions blocking its immigration policies since Trump’s inauguration in January 2025.
Legal experts have called the suit an “escalation” in attacks on judicial independence, noting its rarity—though not entirely unprecedented, as similar actions occurred during the Clinton era over subpoena rules.
Maryland Governor Wes Moore, a Democrat, condemned the move as an attempt to “intimidate judges and usurp the power of the courts.”
The Pivotal Hearing
The hearing took place in Baltimore on Wednesday, August 13, 2025, before U.S. District Judge Thomas Cullen, a Trump appointee from Virginia assigned to the case due to the recusal of all Maryland judges.
Cullen, who presided remotely in some reports, openly admitted his doubts, stating, “I don’t have a very good poker face.
You probably picked up on the fact that I have some skepticism.”
Over nearly two hours, Cullen questioned the viability of the administration’s claims, probing whether the lawsuit could set a precedent for more litigation against higher courts and expressing concerns about its potential to erode judicial norms.
None of the 15 Maryland judges attended the hearing.
Department of Justice lawyer Elizabeth Hedges represented the administration, arguing that the standing order harms government interests by automatically blocking deportations without regard to merit or jurisdiction.
She declined to comment after the hearing.
Defense Arguments
Representing the Maryland judges was prominent conservative attorney Paul Clement, a former solicitor general under President George W. Bush and once considered by Trump for a Supreme Court seat.
Clement described the lawsuit as a “nightmare scenario” and an “extraordinary action that should be dismissed,” warning it could open floodgates for targeting courts nationwide.
The judges’ filing labeled the suit “uniquely disruptive” to the federal court system, emphasizing that the order was a reasonable response to the administration’s tactics, such as rushing deportations to evade court review.
Legal scholars like James Sample of Hofstra University noted that while automatic injunctions are unusual, they stem from the executive’s efforts to circumvent due process.
At the heart of the dispute are high-profile cases illustrating alleged administration overreach.
Judge Paula Xinis, one of the defendants, has sharply criticized the Trump team for deporting Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia to El Salvador in March 2025, despite a protective order barring his removal.
Abrego Garcia, who fled gang violence, was returned to the U.S. in June after weeks of court orders, including from the Supreme Court, demanding his facilitation back—actions the administration initially ignored.
Xinis remarked in a July hearing, “I’m not here to answer your questions in this case; you’re here to answer mine,” accusing prosecutors of destroying the “presumption of regularity.”
She is considering sanctions for contempt.
A similar case involves Judge Stephanie A. Gallagher ordering the return of a Venezuelan minor deported in violation of a settlement agreement.
The lawsuit follows the administration’s recent firing of several immigration judges by email, further fueling judiciary clashes.
Implications
Critics, including retired judges and groups like the Article Three Coalition, view the suit as part of a pattern eroding the rule of law.
Former Judge Andre Davis warned of “dangerous and unwarranted attacks” on the judiciary.
If successful, it could embolden more challenges to courts opposing executive actions.
Conversely, supporters like Andrew Arthur of the Center for Immigration Studies argue the order exceeds judicial authority.
The Supreme Court’s recent rulings allowing expedited deportations add context, though they don’t directly address this case.
Judge Cullen indicated he would rule by Labor Day (September 1, 2025), but anticipates appeals regardless of the outcome.
Trump is Now Being Accused of Getting Epstein Killed
Visit the Homepage for our extensive library of news, or read news for you below.
About The Author
