logo
Trump administration sues all 15 Maryland federal judges over order blocking removal of immigrants

Trump administration sues all 15 Maryland federal judges over order blocking removal of immigrants

Yahoo5 hours ago

The Trump administration on Tuesday filed a lawsuit against all 15 federal judges in Maryland over an order blocking the immediate deportation of migrants challenging their removals, ratcheting up a fight with the federal judiciary over President Donald Trump's executive powers.
The remarkable action lays bare the administration's determination to exert its will over immigration enforcement as well as a growing exasperation with federal judges who have time and again turned aside executive branch actions they see as lawless and without legal merit.
'It's extraordinary," Laurie Levenson, a professor at Loyola Law School, said of the Justice Department's lawsuit. 'And it's escalating DOJ's effort to challenge federal judges.'
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 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.
The administration says the automatic pause on removals violates a Supreme Court ruling and impedes the president's authority to enforce immigration laws.
The Republican administration has been locked for weeks in a growing showdown with the federal judiciary amid a barrage of legal challenges to the president's efforts to carry out key priorities around immigration and other matters. The Justice Department has grown increasingly frustrated by rulings blocking the president's agenda, accusing judges of improperly impeding the president's powers.
"President Trump's executive authority has been undermined since the first hours of his presidency by an endless barrage of injunctions designed to halt his agenda,' Attorney General Pamela Bondi said in a statement Wednesday. '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.'
A spokesman for the Maryland district court declined to comment.
Trump has railed against unfavorable judicial rulings, and in one case called for the impeachment of a federal judge in Washington who ordered planeloads of deported immigrants to be turned around. That led to an extraordinary statement from Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts, who said 'impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision.'
Among the judges named in the lawsuit is Paula Xinis, who 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.
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.
James Sample, a constitutional law professor at Hofstra University, described the lawsuit as further part of the erosion of legal norms by the administration. Normally when parties are on the losing side of an injunction, they appeal the order — not sue the court or judges, he said.
On one hand, he said, the Justice Department has a point that injunctions should be considered extraordinary relief; it's unusual for them to be granted automatically in an entire class of cases. But, he added, it's the administration's own actions in repeatedly moving detainees to prevent them from obtaining writs of habeas corpus that prompted the court to issue the order.
'The judges here didn't ask to be put in this unenviable position,' Sample said. 'Faced with imperfect options, they have made an entirely reasonable, cautious choice to modestly check an executive branch that is determined to circumvent any semblance of impartial process.'
___
Associated Press reporters Gene Johnson in Seattle and Eric Tucker and Alanna Durkin Richer in Washington contributed to this report.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

US Supreme Court poised to rule in challenge to Texas age-check for online porn
US Supreme Court poised to rule in challenge to Texas age-check for online porn

Yahoo

time27 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

US Supreme Court poised to rule in challenge to Texas age-check for online porn

By Andrew Chung WASHINGTON (Reuters) -The U.S. Supreme Court is expected to rule on Friday in a challenge on free speech grounds to a Texas law that requires pornographic websites to verify the age of users in a case testing the legality of state efforts to keep minors from viewing such material online. A trade group representing adult entertainment performers and companies appealed a lower court's decision allowing the Republican-led state's age-verification mandate, finding that it likely did not violate the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment safeguard against government abridgment of speech. The Texas measure is one of 24 similar ones enacted around the United States, primarily in Republican-governed states, with some set to take effect in the months ahead, according to the Free Speech Coalition, which challenged the law. The law requires websites whose content is more than a third "sexual material harmful to minors" to have all users submit personally identifying information verifying they are at least age 18 to gain access. The case tested the limits of state powers to protect minors from explicit materials deemed by policymakers to be harmful to them with measures that burden the access of adults to constitutionally protected expression. Supreme Court precedents have protected access by adults to non-obscene sexual content on First Amendment grounds, including a 2004 ruling that blocked a federal law similar to the Texas measure. If the 2004 precedent prevents Texas from enforcing its law, then it should be overruled, the state argued, noting how the digital landscape has changed dramatically in the two decades since. The coalition, a trade association of adult content performers, producers and distributors, as well as companies that run pornographic websites including and argued that online age verification unlawfully stifles the free speech rights of adults and exposes them to increasing risks of identity theft, extortion and data breaches. Some sites like Pornhub blocked access entirely in states with age-verification laws. Steps such as content-filtering software or on-device age verification would better protect minors while respecting the rights of adults, according to the challengers. During Jan. 15 arguments in the case, the justices voiced worries about the pervasiveness of pornography online and the ease with which minors are able to access it. Conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett, the mother of school-age children, noted that minors can get online porn through cellphones, tablets, gaming systems and computers, and noted that there has been an "explosion of addiction to online porn." But some of the justices also expressed concern over the burdens imposed on adults to view constitutionally protected material, debating whether the New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals should have applied a stricter form of judicial review to the Texas law than the one it actually used that gave deference to legislators. U.S. District Judge David Alan Ezra issued a preliminary injunction in 2023, blocking the law. The 5th Circuit ruled in 2024 that the plaintiffs were unlikely to succeed in their First Amendment challenge to the age-verification requirement, lifting Ezra's injunction on that provision. The 5th Circuit upheld Ezra's injunction against another provision requiring websites to display "health warnings" about viewing pornography. The Supreme Court last year declined to halt enforcement of the law while the case proceeded.

I'm Muslim. Zohran Mamdani's victory is a Barack Obama moment.
I'm Muslim. Zohran Mamdani's victory is a Barack Obama moment.

Washington Post

time34 minutes ago

  • Washington Post

I'm Muslim. Zohran Mamdani's victory is a Barack Obama moment.

Zaid Jilani is a journalist and author of 'The American Saga' newsletter. When I found out about New York Democratic Assembly member Zohran Mamdani's upset victory in New York City's mayoral Democratic primary, an old memory popped into my head. It was the day after Barack Obama trounced John McCain in 2008's presidential election. A friend of mine who was running his student chapter for the state of Georgia greeted me at the student center of the University of Georgia, where we both went to school.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store