Trump Administration Sues Federal Bench in Maryland, Escalating Fight With Judiciary
In late May, as two high-stakes deportation cases were playing out in federal courthouses in Maryland, the district's chief judge, George L. Russell III, issued an unusual new standing rule.
Moving forward, Judge Russell said, any immigrant who sought to challenge their removal from the country by filing what is known as a habeas petition would be automatically granted a temporary order stopping the government from expelling them for at least one day.
On Tuesday evening, the Trump administration took an even more unusual step to kill Judge Russell's unusual move: It filed a lawsuit against him and the other 14 federal judges who serve on the bench in Maryland, seeking a court order that would block the standing rule.
In a 22-page complaint, lawyers for the Justice Department noted — as many administration officials have in recent weeks — that courts across the country have issued an avalanche of injunctions against various parts President Trump's agenda almost from the moment that he returned to office.
The lawyers sought to set their suit against Judge Russell and his colleagues in that context, saying that the new standing rule intruded on the White House's inherent powers to 'enforce the nation's immigration laws.'
'This lawsuit involves yet another regrettable example of the unlawful use of equitable powers to restrain the executive,' the lawyers wrote. 'Specifically, defendants have instituted an avowedly automatic injunction against the federal government, issued outside the context of any particular case or controversy.'
Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Associated Press
19 minutes ago
- Associated Press
Lawyers for Kilmar Abrego Garcia ask judge to keep him in jail over deportation concerns
NASHVILLE, Tenn. (AP) — Attorneys for Kilmar Abrego Garcia asked a federal judge in Tennessee on Friday to delay his release from jail because of 'contradictory statements' by President Donald Trump's administration over whether or not he'll be deported upon release. A federal judge in Nashville has been preparing to release Abrego Garcia to await trial on human smuggling charges. But she's been holding off over concerns that U.S. immigration officials would swiftly detain him and try to deport him again. Abrego Garcia's attorneys are now asking the judge to continue to detain him following statements by Trump administration officials 'because we cannot put any faith in any representation made on this issue by' the Justice Department. 'The irony of this request is not lost on anyone,' the attorneys wrote. Abrego Garcia, a construction worker who had been living in Maryland, became a flashpoint over Trump's hard-line immigration policies when he was mistakenly deported to his native El Salvador in March. Facing mounting pressure and a Supreme Court order, Trump's Republican administration returned him this month to face the smuggling charges, which his attorneys have called 'preposterous.' Justice Department spokesman Chad Gilmartin told The Associated Press on Thursday that the department intends to try Abrego Garcia on the smuggling charges before it moves to deport him, stating that Abrego Garcia 'has been charged with horrific crimes, including trafficking children, and will not walk free in our country again.' Hours earlier, Justice Department attorney Jonathan Guynn told a federal judge in Maryland that the U.S. government plans to deport Abrego Garcia to a 'third country' that isn't El Salvador. Guynn said there was no timeline for the deportation plans. Abrego Garcia's attorneys wrote in their filing on Friday that Guynn's statements were the 'first time the government has represented, to anyone, that it intended not to deport Mr. Abrego back to El Salvador following a trial on these charges, but to deport him to a third country immediately.' The filing by Abrego Garcia's lawyers also cited a post on X on Thursday from White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson: 'Abrego Garcia was returned to the United States to face trial for the egregious charges against him,' Jackson stated. 'He will face the full force of the American justice system — including serving time in American prison for the crimes he's committed.' Abrego Garcia's attorneys wrote Friday the Trump administration brought Abrego Garcia back 'only to convict him in the court of public opinion.' 'In a just world, he would not seek to prolong his detention further,' his attorneys wrote. 'And yet the government — a government that has, at all levels, told the American people that it is bringing Mr. Abrego back home to the United States to face 'American justice' — apparently has little interest in actually bringing this case to trial.' Abrego Garcia pleaded not guilty on June 13 to smuggling charges that his attorneys have characterized as an attempt to justify his mistaken expulsion to a notorious prison in El Salvador. Those charges stem from a 2022 traffic stop for speeding in Tennessee, during which Abrego Garcia was driving a vehicle with nine passengers without luggage. U.S. Magistrate Judge Barbara Holmes in Nashville wrote in a ruling Sunday that federal prosecutors failed to show that Abrego Garcia was a flight risk or a danger to the community. During a court hearing Wednesday, Holmes set specific conditions for Abrego Garcia's release that included him living with his brother, a U.S. citizen, in Maryland. But she held off on releasing him over concerns that prosecutors can't prevent U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement from deporting him. Holmes ordered Abrego Garcia's lawyers and prosecutors to file briefs on the matter Thursday and Friday respectively. ___ Finley reported from Norfolk, Va.
Politico
22 minutes ago
- Politico
Kilmar Abrego Garcia asks judge to keep him detained to avoid snap deportation
Just days after winning court-ordered release from criminal detention, Kilmar Abrego Garcia is pleading with a judge to keep him incarcerated — because of conflicting statements by the Trump administration about whether it will try to quickly deport him upon release. 'The irony of this request is not lost on anyone,' Abrego's lawyers said in a five-page filingFriday asking to postpone his release from custody. 'In a just world, he would not seek to prolong his detention further. And yet the government — a government that has, at all levels, told the American people that it is bringing Mr. Abrego back home to the United States to face 'American justice' — apparently has little interest in actually bringing this case to trial.' The emergency motion is the latest twist for Abrego, who was illegally deported to El Salvador in March, despite a 2019 court order finding he could be targeted for violence by a local gang. The Trump administration resisted court orders to return him to the United States but agreed to bring him back earlier this month to face criminal human smuggling charges in Tennessee. He has pleaded not guilty to those charges. A magistrate judge ordered Abrego's release from pretrial detention on Sunday, concluding that the administration had failed to support claims that Abrego posed a danger or might flee his prosecution. Though he was widely expected to be immediately re-detained by immigration officials, the Justice Department began signaling that the administration might abruptly deport Abrego before his criminal case could go to trial. The federal judge presiding over Abrego's case expressed bewilderment Wednesday that the Justice Department appeared at odds with the Department of Homeland Security on the matter and suggested the administration coordinate its handling of the case. But the matter plunged into further confusion Thursday after the Justice Department told another federal judge — Maryland-based U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis — that prosecutors expected Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials to immediately launch proceedings to send Abrego to a 'third country' — not his native El Salvador — with no firm timeline. And on Thursday night, the White House contradicted the Justice Department, calling the claim that Abrego could be deported before trial — made by its own lawyers in court documents and oral arguments — 'fake news.'
San Francisco Chronicle
23 minutes ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Supreme Court limits nationwide injunctions, but fate of Trump birthright citizenship order unclear
WASHINGTON (AP) — A divided Supreme Court on Friday ruled that individual judges lack the authority to grant nationwide injunctions, but the decision left unclear the fate of President Donald Trump's restrictions on birthright citizenship. The outcome was a victory for the Republican president, who has complained about individual judges throwing up obstacles to his agenda. But a conservative majority left open the possibility that the birthright citizenship changes could remain blocked nationwide. Trump's order would deny citizenship to U.S.-born children of people who are in the country illegally. Birthright citizenship automatically makes anyone born in the United States an American citizen, including children born to mothers in the country illegally. The right was enshrined soon after the Civil War in the Constitution's 14th Amendment. In a notable Supreme Court decision from 1898, United States v. Wong Kim Ark, the court held that the only children who did not automatically receive U.S. citizenship upon being born on U.S. soil were the children of diplomats, who have allegiance to another government; enemies present in the U.S. during hostile occupation; those born on foreign ships; and those born to members of sovereign Native American tribes. The U.S. is among about 30 countries where birthright citizenship — the principle of jus soli or 'right of the soil' — is applied. Most are in the Americas, and Canada and Mexico are among them. Trump and his supporters have argued that there should be tougher standards for becoming an American citizen, which he called 'a priceless and profound gift' in the executive order he signed on his first day in office. The Trump administration has asserted that children of noncitizens are not 'subject to the jurisdiction' of the United States, a phrase used in the amendment, and therefore are not entitled to citizenship. But states, immigrants and rights groups that have sued to block the executive order have accused the administration of trying to unsettle the broader understanding of birthright citizenship that has been accepted since the amendment's adoption. Judges have uniformly ruled against the administration. The Justice Department had argued that individual judges lack the power to give nationwide effect to their rulings. The Trump administration instead wanted the justices to allow Trump's plan to go into effect for everyone except the handful of people and groups that sued. Failing that, the administration argued that the plan could remain blocked for now in the 22 states that sued. New Hampshire is covered by a separate order that is not at issue in this case. As a further fallback, the administration asked 'at a minimum' to be allowed to make public announcements about how it plans to carry out the policy if it eventually is allowed to take effect.
