In an unprecedented legal maneuver, the Trump administration has filed a lawsuit against the entire federal bench of Maryland, escalating ongoing tensions between the executive branch and the judiciary.
Late Tuesday, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) filed suit in a federal court in Baltimore against the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland and all 15 of its sitting judges. The DOJ is challenging a standing order issued in May that temporarily halts deportations for two business days when a migrant in Maryland files a habeas petition contesting their detention.
According to the Justice Department, this order violates U.S. Supreme Court precedent and oversteps judicial authority, claiming it represents “an egregious example of judicial overreach.” The administration contends the move hampers the president's ability to enforce immigration policy, a key component of his political platform.
“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,” said Attorney General Pam Bondi in a public statement.
Legal scholars expressed alarm over the lawsuit’s scope and implications. Marin Levy, a law professor at Duke University, called the move “shocking” and “unprecedented,” noting that such orders are typically challenged through the appeals process rather than through direct legal action against judges.
The DOJ is requesting that the Maryland judges be barred from enforcing the order and that a judge from another state be assigned to hear the case, citing concerns about impartiality. Judicial officials in Maryland have declined to comment.
The contested order was signed by Chief U.S. District Judge George Russell, who, like most judges on the Maryland bench, was appointed by a Democratic president. The order was issued in response to a surge in habeas petitions filed by detainees allegedly facing imminent and unlawful deportation.
Specifically, the order references the case of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a Salvadoran national who was deported in March despite a 2019 immigration court ruling that he should not be sent back to El Salvador due to threats from gangs. Garcia, whose wife and son are U.S. citizens, was returned to the U.S. in June after legal and diplomatic pressure.
The standing order was designed to allow time for judicial review before a deportation is carried out, especially in cases filed during weekends or holidays, when courts often have limited ability to gather information or hold hearings.
The Justice Department argues that the Maryland court’s approach is part of a larger pattern of judicial interference, stating in the lawsuit: “Every unlawful order entered by the district courts robs the Executive Branch of its most scarce resource: time to put its policies into effect. In the process, such orders diminish the votes of the citizens who elected the head of the Executive Branch.”
Abrego was returned to the U.S. only after being charged with migrant smuggling—a charge to which he has pleaded not guilty. A federal judge in Tennessee on Wednesday ordered his release from pre-trial custody without bail but acknowledged that immigration authorities may detain him again.
This lawsuit marks another flashpoint in the Trump administration's broader conflict with the judiciary, particularly over immigration policy, where courts have repeatedly blocked or delayed key initiatives. Legal analysts warn the case could have far-reaching implications for judicial independence and the balance of power among the branches of government.
Dont forget to follow our platform here by clicking on the three horizontal lines on top right corner of the blog page. Thank you for following news1gh
Source: Reuters.com
Comments
Post a Comment