• A federal judge dismissed the Trump administration’s lawsuit against 15 Maryland district judges over immigration policy.
• The decision leaves intact a standing order preventing immediate deportations of detainees challenging their detention.
• Judge Thomas Cullen criticized the executive branch for choosing confrontation over established appeals processes.

BALTIMORE, Md. (TDR) — A federal judge has rejected the Trump administration’s extraordinary lawsuit against all 15 judges of the U.S. District Court in Maryland, ruling Tuesday that the executive branch cannot sue the judiciary over a standing order that protects migrant detainees from immediate removal.

The Case Against the Judiciary

The lawsuit, filed in June by the Justice Department, targeted the order signed by Chief Judge George Russell, which bars immigration officials from deporting detainees for two business days after they file a habeas petition. The administration argued the order was unlawful and outside judicial authority.

Represented by former Solicitor General Paul Clement, the judges moved to dismiss, citing separation of powers. They said the lawsuit reflected an improper clash between co-equal branches of government.

Freedom-Loving Beachwear by Red Beach Nation - Save 10% With Code RVM10

In a 37-page opinion, U.S. District Judge Thomas Cullen agreed. “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,” he wrote.

The Ruling and Its Reasoning

Cullen ruled that the administration lacked standing to sue, and that judges enjoy absolute immunity for their judicial acts. He also noted that Congress already provides proper mechanisms to challenge court orders.

“Any fair reading of the legal authorities cited by Defendants leads to the ineluctable conclusion that this court has no alternative but to dismiss,” Cullen said. He warned that allowing the lawsuit to proceed would “offend the rule of law” and undermine longstanding constitutional tradition.

Cullen, a Trump appointee assigned from Virginia, had previewed his skepticism earlier this month, urging DOJ lawyers to appeal the standing order in an individual case rather than suing the judiciary wholesale.

Rising Tensions Between Branches

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE THE DUPREE REPORT

The case marked a dramatic escalation in the ongoing tensions between President Donald Trump’s administration and federal judges who have ruled against his immigration agenda. In a pointed footnote, Cullen criticized what he called the executive’s “concerted effort… to smear and impugn individual judges who rule against it,” describing the behavior as “unprecedented and unfortunate.”

The ruling comes amid a broader immigration crackdown by the White House, including executive orders and state cooperation agreements. Maryland was one of several states that saw rapid increases in migrant detainees at risk of deportation without review.

Why the Standing Order Matters

Russell’s order was designed to preserve judicial authority and detainees’ rights. It prevents immigration officials from deporting migrants before courts can rule on habeas petitions. The order also ensures petitioners can access counsel and allows the government to present a full defense before removals take place.

Supporters say the measure protects due process. Critics, including Trump officials, argue it slows deportations and undermines enforcement priorities. The administration has also faced legal challenges over its attempts to send migrants to third countries, including Uganda.

The Human Dimension

One case at the center of the controversy involves Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a Salvadoran migrant who has challenged his confinement twice in Maryland. On Monday, he filed another habeas petition, prompting Russell’s order to block his removal to Uganda, where officials had attempted to deport him.

Advocates say Garcia’s case highlights broader questions about fairness in immigration enforcement. “The legal system’s protections exist for a reason — to ensure people aren’t removed before their claims are even heard,” said an immigration attorney familiar with the case.

What Comes Next

The Justice Department could appeal Cullen’s dismissal to a higher court, though legal experts say its chances are slim. Instead, the administration may need to pursue challenges through conventional appeals in individual cases.

Meanwhile, the Maryland court’s standing order remains in effect. Advocates expect it will continue to shield detainees from abrupt deportations while immigration cases move through the courts.

The ruling adds to a series of legal setbacks for the administration’s hardline approach to immigration. It also underscores the difficulties the White House faces in attempting to test constitutional boundaries with aggressive litigation against the judiciary.

Will Trump’s confrontational strategy toward the courts backfire, leaving his immigration agenda more vulnerable than ever?

Freedom-Loving Beachwear by Red Beach Nation - Save 10% With Code RVM10