BALTIMORE (AP) — In a significant legal development, a federal judge has dismissed the Trump administration's lawsuit targeting Maryland's entire federal judiciary. U.S. District Judge Thomas Cullen, who was nominated by President Donald Trump, characterized the lawsuit as “potentially calamitous” and criticized the administration's ongoing attacks on the judiciary. In a noteworthy footnote, Judge Cullen highlighted how White House officials have recently described judges using terms like “rogue,” “unhinged,” and “crooked.”
In his ruling, Judge Cullen expressed concern over the unprecedented nature of the lawsuit, stating, “Although some tension between the coordinate branches of government is a hallmark of our constitutional system, this concerted effort by the Executive to smear and impugn individual judges who rule against it is both unprecedented and unfortunate.” This remark underscores the growing tensions between the judicial and executive branches in the current political climate.
The lawsuit emerged in response to an order from the chief judge of the Maryland district court, which halted the immediate deportation of migrants contesting their removals. The Justice Department argued that this automatic pause obstructed the president’s authority to enforce immigration laws, prompting them to seek a court order to block the chief judge's directive. Judge Cullen firmly stated that allowing the lawsuit to proceed would “run counter to overwhelming precedent, depart from longstanding constitutional tradition, and offend the rule of law.”
In his ruling, Judge Cullen emphasized the importance of the Constitution’s design, which established three coordinate branches of government. He noted, “In their wisdom, the Constitution’s framers joined three coordinate branches to establish a single sovereign.” While acknowledging that conflicts may arise between branches, he insisted that resolving these disputes must respect the judiciary’s constitutional role.
The lawsuit, filed by the Justice Department in June, represents a bold legal strategy that escalates the Trump administration's ongoing confrontations with the federal judiciary. Frustration has mounted within the administration due to unfavorable rulings that hinder Trump’s agenda, leading to accusations that federal judges have overstepped their authority. In one instance, Trump even called for the impeachment of a federal judge in Washington who mandated that deported immigrants be returned.
The Maryland judges, backed by prominent conservative attorney Paul Clement, argued that the lawsuit aimed to undermine the judiciary's ability to review specific immigration cases while the administration pursued a mass deportation strategy. Judge Cullen, who presides in the Western District of Virginia, was appointed to manage this case due to its unique circumstances, where all 15 Maryland federal judges were named as defendants, along with the court clerk and the court itself.
Judge Cullen concluded that the administration lacked the legal standing to initiate the lawsuit. He further asserted that even if such authority existed, the judges involved were functionally immune to the claims made against them. He advised that rather than pursuing a confrontational legal battle, the administration should have appealed the chief judge’s order, stating, “One branch’s alleged infringement on another’s exclusive power does not license a constitutional free-for-all.”
The order in question, signed by Chief Maryland District Judge George L. Russell III, prevents the Trump administration from deporting any immigrants who are seeking judicial review of their detention in Maryland district court. The ruling halts their removal until 4 p.m. on the second business day after they file their habeas corpus petitions, which are legal requests allowing individuals to contest their detention.
The intent of Judge Russell’s order is to maintain the existing legal conditions, ensure that immigrant petitioners can participate in court proceedings and access legal representation, and provide the government ample opportunity to present its arguments. The Trump administration's legal team has contended that the Maryland judges prioritize convenience over legal compliance, arguing that “a sense of frustration and a desire for greater convenience do not give Defendants license to flout the law.”
This unprecedented lawsuit and the subsequent ruling by Judge Cullen represent a crucial moment in the ongoing struggle between the Trump administration and the federal judiciary. As tensions continue to escalate, the implications for judicial independence and executive authority remain significant. With ongoing legal battles regarding immigration policies, this case could set important precedents for the relationship between the branches of government in the United States.
