DOJ lawsuit MarylandDOJ lawsuit Maryland federal judges habeas corpus 2025. The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) has launched a rare lawsuit against all 15 judges of the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland. Filed on June 24, 2025, the suit challenges a May 2025 standing order by Chief Judge George L. Russell III.
The order pauses deportations for 48 hours when migrants file habeas corpus petitions. The DOJ calls it judicial overreach, undermining Trump’s immigration policies.
Retired Judge Andre Davis called the lawsuit “outrageous.” He sees it as an attack on judicial independence amid rising threats to judges.The case, now before a Virginia judge, could reach the Supreme Court. It highlights tensions between the executive and judicial branches.
The Maryland Standing Order
Chief Judge Russell issued the order on May 21, 2025. It was amended on May 28 to address a surge in habeas corpus petitions.The order mandates a 48-hour stay on deportations for migrants filing petitions. It ensures courts can review cases before abrupt removals.
Emily Chertoff, a Georgetown University Law Center professor, explained the need. “Courts need time to consider these requests,” she told NPR.
The order was spurred by cases like Kilmar Abrego Garcia’s. Deported to El Salvador in error, he faced prison before returning to the U.S.Habeas petitions challenge unlawful detention. The Maryland order applies to individual cases, not nationwide injunctions, unlike recent Supreme Court cases.
DOJ’s Legal Arguments
The DOJ’s 22-page complaint calls the order unlawful. It claims it violates Supreme Court precedent and federal immigration law.
The DOJ argues district courts lack jurisdiction to issue automatic stays. It cites 8 U.S.C. § 1252, limiting judicial review in immigration cases.
The order fails the Supreme Court’s injunction test, the DOJ says. It grants relief without case-specific review, deemed “lawless.”The DOJ also claims the order violates rulemaking procedures. It wasn’t subject to notice-and-comment under 28 U.S.C. § 2071.
Operationally, the order disrupts ICE’s deportation efforts. Expired travel documents and last-minute filings create logistical chaos, the DOJ argues.
Trump’s Immigration Crackdown
The lawsuit aligns with President Trump’s aggressive immigration agenda. Since January 2025, his administration has prioritized rapid deportations.
Attorney General Pam Bondi called the order an attack on executive authority. “Judges can violate the law,” she stated in court filings.
The DOJ says it tried resolving the issue with the Judicial Conference before suing. The lawsuit seeks to block the order’s enforcement.
Andrew Arthur of the Center for Immigration Studies supports the DOJ. He calls the order an overreach, making injunctions “mundane.”
Over 250 lawsuits have challenged Trump’s immigration policies in 2025. Maryland’s courts are a focal point due to high-profile cases.
Threat to Judicial Independence
Retired Judge Andre Davis condemned the lawsuit. “It’s an attack on judicial independence,” he told NPR, noting rising threats to judges.
Davis, part of the Article Three Coalition, sees a breakdown in civility. The group defends the judiciary’s role under the Constitution.
Laurie Levenson of Loyola Law School called the suit “extraordinary.” Suing an entire court is rare, escalating executive-judicial tensions.
On X, critics like
@CarolLeonnig
call it “reckless.” Supporters like
@TomFitton
see it as countering a “judicial coup.”The lawsuit names all 15 judges, including 13 Democratic appointees. Maryland Governor Wes Moore called it a constitutional affront.
Historical Context
Suing judges is rare but not unprecedented. The DOJ cites a 1990s Rhode Island case under Clinton, led by then-U.S. Attorney Sheldon Whitehouse.
Chertoff noted litigants can challenge judicial actions. However, suing an entire court bench is nearly unheard of, making this case unique.
The Maryland order mirrors a 2019 4th Circuit practice granting 14-day stays. This suggests courts have authority to manage habeas petitions.
The Supreme Court’s June 2025 ruling on birthright citizenship limited universal injunctions. Maryland’s order, being case-specific, may not conflict.
The case’s transfer to Virginia’s Judge Thomas Cullen, a Trump appointee, avoids conflicts. The Maryland clerk is recused, with a deputy handling tasks.
Broader Implications
The lawsuit raises separation-of-powers concerns. The DOJ argues it protects executive authority, while critics see it as undermining judicial independence.
Davis and 50 retired judges with the Article Three Coalition warn of threats to democracy. “Disobeying court orders undermines the rule of law,” Davis said.
Legal experts predict appeals to the 4th Circuit and possibly the Supreme Court. The case could set a precedent for immigration enforcement.
Paul Clement, a noted conservative lawyer, represents the Maryland judges. His involvement signals the case’s high stakes.
Public sentiment is divided. X posts show support for both sides, with some praising the DOJ and others defending the judiciary’s role.
Looking Ahead
The case could reshape how courts handle immigration petitions. A ruling against the order may limit judicial stays, speeding up deportations.
If upheld, the order could inspire similar measures elsewhere. It would affirm courts’ role in checking executive actions.
The DOJ’s aggressive stance may deter judges from issuing stays. This could reduce protections for migrants facing swift deportations.
The case highlights broader judicial challenges. Threats and impeachment calls against judges have surged, as noted by the Article Three Coalition.
The DOJ’s lawsuit against Maryland’s federal judges is a historic clash over immigration enforcement. The 48-hour habeas stay order, meant to ensure due process, is seen as overreach by the Trump administration. With appeals likely and the judiciary under pressure, this case tests the balance of power. It underscores the stakes of judicial independence in a polarized era.
