The Trump administration escalated its legal battle with the judicial system by filing a lawsuit against 15 federal judges in Maryland. This action comes in response to a May order by Chief Judge George L. Russell III, which temporarily halts the deportation of immigrants who seek a court review of their detention in Maryland. This lawsuit intensifies the administration’s attempts to assert control over immigration enforcement and reflects its growing frustration with judicial interventions that block executive decisions deemed unlawful.
Laurie Levenson, a legal expert at Loyola Law School, remarked on the extraordinary nature of the Justice Department’s legal maneuver and noted that it amplifies the administration’s efforts to challenge the judiciary. The administration argues that the automatic suspension of deportations infringes on a Supreme Court ruling and diminishes the president’s ability to enforce immigration policies.
The Trump administration has been engaged in an extended conflict with the judiciary, often facing legal obstacles that have thwarted major policy initiatives, especially those concerning immigration. Attorney General Pamela Bondi emphasized the administration’s stance, criticizing judicial rulings as obstructions to the president’s agenda and viewing such actions as an overreach that undermines the democratic will expressed through the election of President Trump.
While the Maryland district court offered no comment, the friction between Trump and the federal judiciary has been evident, with the president openly criticizing hostile legal decisions. In a notable instance, he suggested the impeachment of a judge in Washington who ordered the return of deported individuals, prompting a rare statement from Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts defending judicial independence.
Paula Xinis, one of the judges named in the lawsuit, previously denounced the deportation of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, prompting his legal team to seek penalties against the administration for noncompliance. Chief Judge Russell’s order aims to uphold the court’s jurisdiction, facilitate immigrants’ legal participation, and provide the government a substantive opportunity to argue their case.
Judge Russell highlighted logistical challenges faced by the court in processing habeas petitions, which often arrive outside regular hours, complicating court proceedings. The administration seeks to transfer the case to a judge from another state, arguing for the recusal of Maryland judges.
James Sample, a constitutional law professor at Hofstra University, criticized the administration’s lawsuit as an erosion of legal norms. He noted that, in usual practice, parties dissatisfied with an injunction typically appeal the decision rather than suing the judges involved. While acknowledging that injunctions should be sparingly granted, Sample stressed that the administration’s actions have provoked such judicial responses.
Sample remarked that the judges find themselves in an unenviable position due to the executive branch’s tactics, which aim to bypass impartial judicial processes. Faced with limited choices, the judges have opted for a careful approach to maintain the judicial check on executive power.