Trump administration sues all 15 Maryland federal judges over order blocking removal of immigrants

TruthLens AI Suggested Headline:

"Trump Administration Sues Maryland Federal Judges Over Deportation Ruling"

View Raw Article Source (External Link)
Raw Article Publish Date:
AI Analysis Average Score: 7.4
These scores (0-10 scale) are generated by Truthlens AI's analysis, assessing the article's objectivity, accuracy, and transparency. Higher scores indicate better alignment with journalistic standards. Hover over chart points for metric details.

TruthLens AI Summary

The Trump administration has escalated its conflict with the federal judiciary by filing a lawsuit against all 15 federal judges in Maryland. This legal action is in response to an order that blocks the immediate deportation of immigrants who file petitions with the Maryland district court challenging their removals. The order, signed by Chief Judge George L. Russell III in May, mandates that any deportation be paused until the second business day after a habeas corpus petition is filed. The administration argues that this automatic pause infringes upon the president's authority to enforce immigration laws and contradicts a Supreme Court ruling. Attorney General Pamela Bondi has characterized the lawsuit as a necessary step to combat what she views as judicial overreach that undermines President Trump's executive powers and the democratic process itself.

This lawsuit is part of a broader pattern of tension between the Trump administration and the federal judiciary, which has increasingly blocked various executive actions, particularly in the realm of immigration. Critics, including Democratic Rep. Glenn Ivey, have condemned the lawsuit as an unprecedented attack on the judiciary. Legal experts have noted that the typical recourse for those dissatisfied with judicial rulings is to appeal rather than sue the judges directly. The administration's actions have been described as a further erosion of legal norms, with constitutional law professor James Sample emphasizing that the judges were compelled to act in response to the administration's own practices that hindered detainees' access to legal recourse. The lawsuit not only highlights the ongoing legal battles over immigration policy but also raises significant questions about the balance of power between the executive and judicial branches of government.

TruthLens AI Analysis

You need to be a member to generate the AI analysis for this article.

Log In to Generate Analysis

Not a member yet? Register for free.

Unanalyzed Article Content

The Trump administration on Tuesday filed alawsuit againstall 15 federal judges in Maryland over an order blocking the immediate deportation of migrants challenging their removals, ratcheting up a fight with the federal judiciary over President Donald Trump’s executive powers.

The remarkable action lays bare the administration’s determination to exert its will over immigration enforcement as well as a growing exasperation with federal judges who have time and again turned aside executive branch actions they see as lawless and without legal merit.

“It’s extraordinary,” Laurie Levenson, a professor at Loyola Law School, said of the Justice Department’s lawsuit. “And it’s escalating DOJ’s effort to challenge federal judges.”

At issue is an order signed by Chief Judge George L. Russell III and filed in May blocking the administration from immediately removing from the US any immigrants who file paperwork with the Maryland district court seeking a review of their detention. The order blocks the removal until 4 p.m. on the second business day after thehabeas corpuspetition is filed.

The administration says the automatic pause on removals violates a Supreme Court ruling and impedes the president’s authority to enforce immigration laws.

The Trump administration has been locked for weeks in a growing showdown with the federal judiciary amid a barrage of legal challenges to the president’s efforts to carry out key priorities around immigration and other matters. The Justice Department has grown increasingly frustrated by rulings blocking the president’s agenda, accusing judges of improperly impeding the president’s powers.

“President Trump’s executive authority has been undermined since the first hours of his presidency by an endless barrage of injunctions designed to halt his agenda,” Attorney General Pamela Bondi said in astatementWednesday. “The American people elected President Trump to carry out his policy agenda: this pattern of judicial overreach undermines the democratic process and cannot be allowed to stand.”

A spokesman for the Maryland district court declined to comment.

Democratic Rep. Glenn Ivey of Maryland slammed the lawsuit, writing in aposton X, “This is absurd and an unprecedented attack on the federal judiciary in Maryland. The Trump Administration will stop at nothing to undermine judicial rulings and delegitimize the courts.”

Trump has railed against unfavorable judicial rulings, and in one case called for the impeachment of a federal judge in Washington who ordered planeloads of deported immigrants to be turned around. That led to anextraordinary statementfrom Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts, who said, “Impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision.”

Among the judges named in the lawsuit isPaula Xinis, who has called the administration’s deportation ofKilmar Abrego Garciato El Salvador illegal. Attorneys for Abrego Garcia have asked Xinis to impose fines against the administration for contempt, arguing that it ignored court orders for weeks to return him to the US.

The order signed by Russell says it aims to maintain existing conditions and the potential jurisdiction of the court; ensure immigrant petitioners are able to participate in court proceedings and access attorneys; and give the government “fulsome opportunity to brief and present arguments in its defense.”

In an amended order, Russell said the court had received an influx of habeas petitions after hours that “resulted in hurried and frustrating hearings in that obtaining clear and concrete information about the location and status of the petitioners is elusive.”

The Trump administration has asked the Maryland judges to recuse themselves from the case. It wants a clerk to have a federal judge from another state hear it.

James Sample, a constitutional law professor at Hofstra University, described the lawsuit as furthererosion of legal normsby the administration. Normally when parties are on the losing side of an injunction, they appeal the order — not sue the court or judges, he said.

On one hand, he said, the Justice Department has a point that injunctions should be considered extraordinary relief; it’s unusual for them to be granted automatically in an entire class of cases. But, he added, it’s the administration’s own actions in repeatedly moving detainees to prevent them from obtaining writs of habeas corpus that prompted the court to issue the order.

“The judges here didn’t ask to be put in this unenviable position,” Sample said. “Faced with imperfect options, they have made an entirely reasonable, cautious choice to modestly check an executive branch that is determined to circumvent any semblance of impartial process.”

Back to Home
Source: CNN