Trump administration sues Maryland federal judges over order blocking removal of immigrants
BALTIMORE — The Trump administration has filed a lawsuit against federal judges in Maryland over an order that blocks the immediate removal of any detained immigrant who requests a court hearing.
The unusual suit filed Tuesday in Baltimore against the chief judge of the U.S. District Court in Maryland and the court's other judges underscores the administration's focus on immigration enforcement and ratchets up its fight with the judiciary.
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 U.S. any immigrants who file paperwork with the Maryland federal district court seeking a review of their detention. The order blocks the removal until 4 p.m. on the second business day after the habeas corpus petition is filed.
In its suit, the Trump administration says such an automatic pause on removals violates a Supreme Court ruling and impedes the president's authority to enforce immigration laws.
'Defendants' automatic injunction issues whether or not the alien needs or seeks emergency relief, whether or not the court has jurisdiction over the alien's claims, and no matter how frivolous the alien's claims may be,' the suit says. 'And it does so in the immigration context, thus intruding on core Executive Branch powers.'
The suit names the U.S. and U.S. Department of Homeland Security as plaintiffs.
The Maryland district court had no comment, Chief Deputy Clerk David Ciambruschini said in an email.
The Trump administration has repeatedly clashed with federal judges over its deportation efforts.
One of the Maryland judges named as a defendant in Tuesday's lawsuit, Paula Xinis, has called the administration's deportation of Kilmar Abrego Garcia to 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 U.S. from El Salvador.
And on the same day the Maryland court issued its order pausing removals, a federal judge in Boston said the White House had violated a court order on deportations to third countries with a flight linked to South Sudan.
A fired Justice Department lawyer said in a whistleblower complaint made public Tuesday that a top official at the agency had suggested the Trump administration might have to ignore court orders as it prepared to deport Venezuelan migrants it accused of being gang members.
U.S. Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi said court injunctions 'designed to halt' the president's agenda have undermined his authority since the first hours of his administration.
'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,' she said in a statement announcing the lawsuit against Maryland's district court.
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.
Thanawala writes for the Associated Press.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
USA Today
42 minutes ago
- USA Today
I was the named 'opposition' in Obergefell v. Hodges. I've never been happier to lose.
10 years on, as we reflect on Obergefell v. Hodges and those who are finally able to marry the person they love, I'm honored to have played a small part, even if it was from the other side of the 'v.' Ten years ago, my name was one of the two associated with one of the most significant Supreme Court cases in modern history: Obergefell v. Hodges. The outcome granted same-sex couples the right to marry nationwide, transforming the lives of so many in a deeply personal and profoundly legal way. But the truth is, I never intended to be a part of history. Not because I opposed marriage equality. I never did. In fact, I supported same-sex marriage before my name was ever attached to the case, despite being cast as the face of the opposition. In August 2014, I was appointed director of the Ohio Department of Health. Not long into my tenure, legal counsel told me I would be named as the respondent in a fast-moving legal challenge related to Ohio's same-sex marriage, one that they added was likely to reach the Supreme Court. My name was the 'opposition' to marriage equality. But I never opposed it. At the time, I hadn't even heard of Jim Obergefell, the plaintiff who was taking legal action against Ohio's refusal to put his name on his late husband's death certificate, John Arthur, because of the state's ban on same-sex marriage. I remember saying, 'Wait, what have I done to be involved in this?' But that's how the legal system works. The case was already underway. The court needed a named state official to represent the law being challenged, and as director of the Department of Health, that person was me. I had taken an oath to defend the Constitution and the laws of the state of Ohio, regardless of personal opinions. While those laws did not yet recognize marriage between same-sex couples, I saw my role as administrative and procedural, not ideological. My job was to ensure everything proceeded in an orderly fashion. If the court ruled against the state, as we expected, it would be easy for us to comply immediately. Behind the scenes, my team prepared for that outcome. We didn't want to wait 90 days or longer to implement a ruling, but rather, we worked quietly and diligently to update forms, systems and procedures. When the decision came down, we could honor it without delay. It was important to me that we show respect ‒ not just to the law, but also to the people whose lives would be changed by it, including many of our staff members. On June 26, 2015, when the ruling was handed down, I was in a meeting when one of the attorneys walked in and said, 'We lost.' I nodded and simply said 'OK' before authorizing the release of all the preparations we had already made. I didn't get the historic calls from then-President Barack Obama that Jim Obergefell received. Rather, I did my job to ensure quick compliance ‒ and with relief that the case was resolved and that many people's lives had changed for the better. Opinion: We misremember marriage equality as 'easy' fight. But it paved the way for trans rights. From a strange role in history came an unlikely friendship A few days before the ruling, a lifelong friend of mine in a same-sex relationship called and said, 'Rick, when are you going to lose, because I want to be the first person in Ohio to get married?' I laughed and reminded him that I had no insight into the court's deliberations. But then he asked me something I'll never forget: 'Will you read the Bible at my wedding?' I agreed immediately. Days after the decision, I read the Bible at my friend's wedding. The ceremony was filled with joy, surrounded by friends, including, somewhat ironically, many top Ohio Republicans. It was a moment of real celebration, not just for him and his husband, but for everyone who had waited so long to be recognized by the law. Opinion: I told you GOP would come for marriage. Southern Baptists just proved my point. About ten months later, a mutual friend arranged coffee, and that's when I met Jim Obergefell for the first time. I was a little nervous. After all, I was the named opponent in the case that resulted from the death of his husband. But the moment we met, we clicked, and I told him I was glad he was doing well and that I had never been happier to lose in my life. From there, we became friends. It's a real friendship. Not just polite handshakes at public events, but phone calls, favors, lunches and showing up for each other in ways big and small. Jim has given me a platform to talk about the values I care deeply about: civility, dignity and respect for every human being. And sometimes even now, we speak together, not as plaintiff and defendant, but as two people whose lives were shaped by the same story from very different angles. I never set out to be a part of a civil rights case. But I am proud of how I handled the responsibility. I'm proud that our team made it easy to comply with the ruling. I'm especially proud of the unlikely friendship that emerged from it. Ten years later, we reflect on Obergefell v. Hodges and the people who were finally able to marry the person they love. I think about the sense of relief and the legal protections now provided to all married couples. And I'm honored to have played even a small part in that story, even if it was from the other side of the 'v.' This anniversary gives us the opportunity to set politics aside and reaffirm our commitment to protecting this constitutional right to marriage equality. A decade from now, and decades after that, all individuals can continue to enjoy their right to marry the one they love and experience all that comes with it. Rick Hodges is the named defendant in the 2015 landmark case Obergefell v. Hodges, due to his former role as director of the Ohio Department of Health from 2014 to 2017, and is also a former Ohio lawmaker. Now an assistant clinical professor at Ohio University's College of Health Sciences and Professions, he's also the director of the Ohio Alliance for Innovation in Population Health (OAIPH) and the Ohio University Health Collaborative (OUHC).
New York Times
an hour ago
- New York Times
We've Just Seen How Trump Can Be Stopped
Two Saturdays ago, I found myself on the streets of a small, down-at-heel Republican town in northwestern Connecticut where dozens of protesters had gathered to join the millions who took to the streets across the nation to oppose Donald Trump's increasingly autocratic presidency. Wielding handmade signs filled with corny puns, they braved the spitting rain to declare that the United States would not be ruled by a self-proclaimed king. It was, by some estimates, the biggest single-day protest in American history, driven by genuine anger at, among other outrages, Trump's aggressive and unlawful deployment of the American military on the streets of Los Angeles. A week later, Trump unlawfully deployed the American military once again, dispatching B-2 bombers to drop so-called bunker busters on Iran's nuclear facilities. Trump ordered this unprovoked attack, apparently at the behest of Israel's prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, without consulting Congress, much less seeking its approval, another breach of the norms and laws of the United States. It was also a clear betrayal of a core promise of Trump's campaign to return to the presidency — an America First foreign policy that would avoid bloody entanglements in the kind of faraway wars that tore the country apart over more than two decades. I waited in vain for some kind of galvanized response — protests, petitions, anything — to the threat of America starting another war. I wasn't really surprised that it did not come. Unlike most people around the globe, Americans, by dint of geography, history and temperament, enjoy an illusory wall between the domestic and the foreign. But the dark genius of the first months of Trump 2.0 has been collapsing that distinction, turning domestic enemies — pro-Palestine students, unauthorized migrants, elite universities — into threats from abroad. That is the sort of thing autocrats everywhere do, but the nature of the American system of government, and Trump's canny manipulation of it, has given him outsized power. By couching fights with purported internal enemies as matters of national security and foreign policy, areas where by law and custom presidents have broad authority, Trump has unshackled himself. With his strike on Iran, Trump moved on to the corollary, recasting distant trouble as an immediate threat on the home front. For all his America First posturing, Trump's adventurism abroad and his aggression at home are closely twinned. In both, he claims extraordinary powers, under the banner of protecting America and unfettered by any kind of norms or congressional checks, to do whatever he wants. This is a grave threat. It's also a tantalizing opportunity. Because for all the mind-mangling speed of events and the strange place Iran occupies in the American psyche, it is clear that a majority of Americans, stretching from progressives to MAGA populists, oppose and fear American warmaking. It's equally clear that a broad swath of society opposes Trump's autocratic arrogations of domestic power; just look at the spread and scale of the No Kings protests and his slumping polling numbers on issues he used to dominate, including the economy. Finding a way to combine these two objections — to fuse, as Trump does, the domestic with the foreign — is a means to a properly majoritarian politics in the United States. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
New York Times
an hour ago
- New York Times
Still Devoted to Each Other, Picky Eating and All
Terry Cosentino and Tom Rock try not to make a habit of cutting others in line. But when they do see fit to leapfrog ahead of people, it's with a clean conscience. When they pushed past competitors as contestants on the shows 'Ellen's Game of Games' (2020) and 'The Amazing Race' (2006), for example, they were just doing their reality TV duty. Their wedding date is more representative of their grace and fortitude when situational stakes are high. Though they could have wed as early as 2011, when New York legalized same-sex marriages, Mr. Cosentino and Dr. Rock, then together for seven years, chose to hold off until after the Supreme Court's June 2015 decision requiring all states to recognize these unions. 'We didn't want to cheat the system,' said Mr. Cosentino, the senior corporate events manager at Constant Contact, a marketing company. He and Dr. Rock, who holds a doctorate in education from Columbia's Teachers College and is the chief student affairs officer and associate vice president there, married Nov. 12, 2016. Dr. Ruth Westheimer, then a colleague of Dr. Rock's, was among the 230 guests. 'We wanted it to be all right for every couple, not just some,' Mr. Cosentino said. As supporters around the country marked the 10th anniversary of the landmark legal ruling during Pride Month, Mr. Cosentino, 64, and Dr. Rock, 58, who live in Manhattan, planned to acknowledge it in their usual way. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
