In a resounding decision that highlighted the unprecedented character of the complaint, a federal judge on Tuesday dismissed the Trump administration’s lawsuit against the entire federal bench in Maryland, calling it “potentially calamitous.”
U.S. District Judge Thomas Cullen, who was appointed by President Trump, likewise denounced the assaults on the judiciary by the current administration. He noted in a footnote that, in the last few months, White House officials have used derogatory terms to characterize judges, including “rogue,” “unhinged,” and “crooked,” among others.
It is both unprecedented and terrible that the executive branch is attempting to slander and impugn individual judges who decide against it, despite the fact that conflict between the branches is a hallmark of our constitutional system, he said.
A notice of appeal was filed by the Trump administration.
A Maryland district court chief judge’s ruling halting the imminent deportation of migrants contesting their removals is at the heart of the litigation. According to the Justice Department, the president’s ability to enforce immigration laws was hindered by the automatic pause, which is why it sought a court order to prevent it.
“Would run counter to overwhelming precedent, depart from longstanding constitutional tradition, and offend the rule of law,” Cullen stated, referring to the potential continuation of the lawsuit.
According to Cullen, “the framers of the Constitution joined three coordinate branches to establish a single sovereign” in their wisdom. Conflicts between branches or attempts by one branch to usurp the power of another are possible outcomes of that organizational design. While mediating such conflicts, it is essential to do so in a way that does not undermine the constitutional authority of the judiciary.
Decisions that go against Trump
A stunning legal maneuver, the June complaint was brought by the Justice Department and escalated the Trump administration’s conflict with the federal judges. Over and over, the administration has accused federal courts of unjustly limiting Trump’s authority, expressing its growing frustration with decisions that have blocked his agenda.
On Tuesday, White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson stated, “The Maryland court’s order upholds a direct assault on the President’s ability to enforce the immigration laws.” “The Trump administration is eager to achieve a final victory on the matter, and this will not be the last say on the matter.”
In response to negative court decisions, Trump has taken to tweeting and has even gone so far as to call for the impeachment of a federal judge in Washington who had ordered the return of a planeload of deported immigrants. That judge was the subject of a misconduct charge that was brought out by the Justice Department in July.
The conservative attorney Paul Clement argued on behalf of the conservative judges from Maryland that the administration’s action was an attempt to restrict the ability of the courts to evaluate specific immigration processes in the midst of the administration’s drive for mass deportation.
Judge Paula Xinis was one of the judges listed in the petition; she had previously determined that the Trump administration had unlawfully deported Kilmar Abrego Garcia to El Salvador in March, a case that had become a lightning rod for Trump’s immigration enforcement.
The case was assigned to Cullen, a federal judge from the Western District of Virginia who was nominated by Trump in 2020. Cullen noted in his ruling that it was an extremely unusual circumstance that all fifteen federal judges from Maryland, as well as the court clerk and the court itself, were named as defendants.
“The Executive engaged in unprecedented and possibly disastrous litigation by ensnaring the entire judiciary, which is an essential component of the executive branch,” he stated.
According to Cullen, the government did not have the power to sue, but even if it had, the judges would still be safe from legal consequences. He said that the government should have taken the “tried-and-true recourse available to all federal litigants” and appealed the chief judge’s ruling rather than using the “more confrontational” route of a lawsuit.
He stated, “A constitutional free-for-all” cannot be justified just because one branch is accused of infringing on another’s exclusive power.
The order issued by the judge in Maryland
The deportation of any immigrant seeking a review of their detention in Maryland district court is halted pursuant to an order signed by Chief Maryland District Judge George L. Russell III, which is relevant to this case. They are able to contest the government’s custody by submitting habeas corpus petitions, which delay their deportation until 4 p.m. on the second working day after.
The current situation and the court’s possible authority will be preserved, the immigrant petitioners will have access to legal representation and be allowed to take part in the court proceedings, and the government will be given “fulsome opportunity to brief and present arguments in its defense,” according to the ruling.
Russell stated in an updated decision that deportations had been halted that the court had been inundated with habeas petitions the previous day, which “led to rushed and frustrating hearings in that obtaining clear and concrete information about the location and status of the petitioners is elusive.”
“Defendants’ license to flout the law” was written in court papers by Trump administration attorneys who claimed that the courts in Maryland prioritized a regular schedule over everything else.
At a hearing earlier this month, Clement, who was solicitor general under Republican George W. Bush, criticized the lawsuit.
An equal branch of government is being sued by the executive branch, he added, on behalf of the United States. “This suit really has no predecessors.”