Trump administration's lawsuit against all of Maryland's federal judges meets skepticism in court
U.S. District Judge Thomas Cullen didn't issue a ruling following a hearing in federal court in Baltimore, but he expressed skepticism about the administration's extraordinary legal maneuver, which attorneys for the Maryland judges called completely unprecedented.
Cullen serves in the Western District of Virginia, but he was tapped to oversee the Baltimore case because all of Maryland's 15 federal judges are named as defendants, a highly unusual circumstance that reflects the Republican administration's aggressive response to courts that slow or stop its policies.
At issue in the lawsuit is an order signed by Chief Maryland District Judge George L. Russell III that prevents the administration from immediately deporting any immigrants seeking review of their detention in a Maryland federal court. The order blocks their removal until 4 p.m. on the second business day after their habeas corpus petition is filed.
The Justice Department, which filed the lawsuit in June, says the automatic pause impedes President Donald Trump's authority to enforce immigration laws.
But attorneys for the judges argue the lawsuit was intended to limit the power of the judiciary to review certain immigration proceedings while the administration pursues a mass deportation agenda.
'The executive branch seeks to bring suit in the name of the United States against a co-equal branch of government,' attorney Paul Clement said during Wednesday's hearing. 'There really is no precursor for this suit'
Clement listed several other avenues the administration could have taken to challenge the order, such as filing an appeal in an individual habeas case.
Cullen also asked the government's attorneys whether they had considered that alternative, which he said could have been more expeditious than suing all the judges. He also questioned what would happen if the administration accelerated its current approach and sued a federal appellate bench, or even the Supreme Court.
'I think you probably picked up on the fact that I have some skepticism,' Cullen told Justice Department attorney Elizabeth Themins Hedges when she stood to present the Trump administration's case.
Hedges denied that the case would 'open the floodgates' to similar lawsuits. She said the government is simply seeking relief from a legal roadblock preventing effective immigration enforcement.
'The United States is a plaintiff here because the United States is being harmed,' she said.
Cullen, who was nominated to the federal bench by Trump in 2019, said he would issue a ruling by Labor Day on whether to dismiss the lawsuit. If allowed to proceed, he could also grant the government's request for a preliminary injunction that would block the Maryland federal bench from following the conditions of the chief judge's order.
The automatic pause in deportation proceedings sought 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,' according to the order.
Russell also 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.' Habeas petitions allow people to challenge their detention by the government.
The administration accused Maryland judges of prioritizing a regular schedule, saying in court documents that 'a sense of frustration and a desire for greater convenience do not give Defendants license to flout the law.'
Among the judges named in the lawsuit is Paula Xinis, who found the administration illegally deported Kilmar Abrego Garcia to El Salvador in March — a case that quickly became a flashpoint in Trump's immigration crackdown. Abrego Garcia was held in a notorious Salvadoran megaprison, where he claims to have been beaten and tortured.
The administration later brought Abrego Garcia back to the U.S. and charged him with human smuggling in Tennessee. His attorneys characterized the charge as an attempt to justify his erroneous deportation. Xinis recently prohibited the administration from taking Abrego Garcia into immediate immigration custody if he's released from jail pending trial.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Winnipeg Free Press
5 minutes ago
- Winnipeg Free Press
Zelenskyy to meet with UK's Starmer as Europe braces for Trump-Putin summit
British Prime Minister Keir Starmer is expected to welcome Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy in London Thursday morning, the latest meeting between the Ukrainian leader and the head of a European country as the continent braces for a critical U.S.-Russia summit in Alaska on Friday. Zelenskyy's trip to the British capital comes a day after he took part in virtual meetings from Berlin with U.S. President Donald Trump and the leaders of several European countries. Those leaders said Trump had assured them he would make a priority of trying to achieve a ceasefire in Ukraine when he meets with Russian President Vladimir Putin on Friday in Anchorage. Both Zelenskyy and the Europeans have worried the bilateral U.S.-Russia summit would leave them and their interests sidelined, and that any conclusions reached could favor Moscow and leave Ukraine and Europe's future security in jeopardy with Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine now in its fourth year. Yet some of those leaders, like German Chancellor Friedrich Merz and French President Emmanuel Macron, praised Wednesday's video conference with Trump as constructive. Speaking after the meetings to reporters, Trump warned of 'very severe consequences' for Russia if Putin does not agree to stop the war against Ukraine after their Friday meeting. Territorial integrity Starmer on Wednesday said the Alaska summit would be 'hugely important,' and could be a 'viable' path to a ceasefire in Ukraine. But he also alluded to European concerns that Trump may strike a deal that forces Ukraine to cede territory to Russia, and warned that Western allies must be prepared to step up pressure on Russia if necessary. During a call Wednesday among leaders of countries involved in the 'coalition of the willing' — those who are prepared to help police any future peace agreement between Moscow and Kyiv — Starmer stressed that any deal reached on bringing the fighting to an end must protect the 'territorial integrity' of Ukraine. 'International borders cannot be, and must not be changed by force, and again that's a long-standing principle of this group,'' he said. 'And alongside that, any talk about borders, diplomacy, ceasefire has to sit alongside a robust and credible security guarantee to ensure that any peace, if there is peace, is lasting peace and Ukraine can defend its territorial integrity as part of any deal.' Some Ukrainians skeptical With another high-level meeting on their country's future on the horizon, some Ukrainians expressed skepticism that any breakthroughs would be achieved during Friday's U.S.-Russia summit. Oleksandra Kozlova, 39, a department head at a digital agency in Kyiv, told The Associated Press on Wednesday that she believes Ukrainians 'have already lost hope' that meaningful progress can be made on ending the 3 1/2-year-old war. 'I don't think this round will be decisive,' she said. 'There have already been enough meetings and negotiations promising us, ordinary people, that something will be resolved, that things will get better, that the war will end. Unfortunately, this has not happened, so personally I don't see any changes coming.' Anton Vyshniak, a car salesman in Kyiv, said Ukraine's priority now should be saving the lives of its military servicepeople, even at the expense of making territorial concessions. 'At the moment, the most important thing is to preserve the lives of male and female military personnel. After all, there are not many human resources left,' he said. 'Borders are borders, but human lives are priceless. Therefore, some principles can be disregarded here.' Russia and Ukraine trade strikes Russian strikes in Ukraine's Sumy region overnight Wednesday resulted in numerous injuries, Ukrainian regional officials said. A missile strike on a village in the Seredyna-Budska community injured a 7-year-old girl and a 27-year-old man, according to regional governor Oleh Hryhorov. The girl was hospitalized in stable condition. In the southern Kherson region, Russian artillery fire struck the village of Molodizhne on Thursday morning, injuring a 16-year-old boy, regional governor Oleksandr Prokudin said. The teenager suffered an explosive injury, shrapnel wounds to his arms and legs and an acute stress reaction. He was hospitalized in moderate condition, Prokudin said. In Russia, an oil refinery in the Volgograd region caught fire after a Ukrainian drone attack overnight, according to local governor Andrei Bocharov. The refinery, one of the biggest producers of petroleum products in southern Russia, has been a frequent target of drone attacks, according to Russian independent news site Meduza. Overall, Russia's Defense Ministry reported destroying 44 Ukrainian drones over Russian regions and the annexed Crimea overnight. In Belgorod, the biggest city in the namesake region on the border with Ukraine, three civilians were injured in a Ukrainian drone attack, Gov. Vyacheslav Gladkov said, adding that a government building was hit by the attack. ___ Follow AP's coverage of the war in Ukraine at
Vancouver Sun
36 minutes ago
- Vancouver Sun
Canadians are torn about whether to put their elbows up or down in U.S. trade war: poll
OTTAWA — Canadians are split on whether Canada should go into trade negotiations with the U.S. with elbows up or down when it comes to retaliatory tariffs, according to a new poll. The Leger/Postmedia poll suggests that 45 per cent of Canadians still believe Canada's position vis-à-vis U.S. President Donald Trump should be 'elbows up.' That means that Canada should impose counter-tariffs on all new U.S. border levies, even if it risks further retaliation from the Trump administration. But on the other hand, 41 per cent of respondents said they'd prefer Canada's response be 'measured' and focus more on getting a new trade deal even if it includes some tariffs on Canadian goods. Start your day with a roundup of B.C.-focused news and opinion. By signing up you consent to receive the above newsletter from Postmedia Network Inc. A welcome email is on its way. If you don't see it, please check your junk folder. The next issue of Sunrise will soon be in your inbox. Please try again Interested in more newsletters? Browse here. The split among Canadians puts Prime Minister Mark Carney in somewhat of an 'awkward position' as he must navigate conflicting views on how to deal with an erratic and unpredictable Trump administration, said Leger executive vice-president Andrew Enns. On the one hand are those who still believe in the 'eye for an eye' approach with the U.S., and on the other hand is the growing number of Canadians who favour a slightly more conciliatory and measured approach. 'I think there's been a bit of a tempering, a bit of a diminishment of the 'elbows up' aggressive approach. It's still very present, and you know, not to be ignored,' Enns said. 'But I certainly would say that there's a stronger sort of view now starting to show up in Canadian opinion that says, 'Well hold on here, maybe we ought to think this through, let's not be hasty.' The new survey is in stark contrast to polling just six months ago, when a substantial 73 per cent of respondents told Leger they supported dollar-for-dollar retaliatory tariffs against any U.S. border levy on Canadian goods. For Enns, it means many Canadians — and particularly Gen Xers and Boomers over 55 years old who expressed particularly fierce Canadian patriotism earlier this year — are having a moment of 'sober second thought' as the trade war with the U.S. drags on. The shift in public sentiment could also be a reflection of the change in tone from Carney himself. During the Liberal leadership race in February, Carney said he supported suggestions of dollar-for-dollar retaliatory tariffs. But since becoming prime minister, he has not retaliated to any of Trump's new tariffs on such key Canadian sectors as steel, aluminum and automobiles. In fact, he suggested last week that Canada may remove some tariffs on U.S. imports if it's beneficial to Canadian industry. 'When we first started to feel the brunt of President Trump's trade aggression, you know, Canadians were much more bullish, much more aggressive in terms of retaliation,' Enns noted. 'The temperature has come down and you've got maybe a bit of sober second thought from Canadians saying that we have to figure out a way out of this and it's not going to be with ah 'I hit you, you hit me, I hit you back' kind of thing.' Canadians, however, aren't overwhelmingly supportive of opening specific industries to American competition. Roughly half the respondents said they were willing to allow American-owned airlines to fly domestic routes in Canada or authorize U.S. telecommunication companies to operate on Canadian soil. Even fewer (33 per cent) are willing to loosen supply management rules protecting the Canadian dairy industry to let in more U.S. products. 'I would not say there's a groundswell of support and a sort of blank cheque for Carney, for the prime minister, to open up negotiations on these things,' Enns said. 'But it is kind of interesting that there's about half the population that, all things equal, think 'I'm open to hearing what that would look like'.' Carney's Liberals also appear to have peaked in their popularity with Canadians this summer, the poll suggests. After months of rising support since the April 28 election, the Liberals' popularity dipped for the first time, dropping two points to 46 per cent since July 7, the poll says. But Carney's party still holds a significant lead over Pierre Poilievre's Conservatives (36 per cent) and the NDP, led by interim head Don Davies (six per cent), who both saw their parties' support increase by one point over the past month. Total satisfaction in the Carney government also dipped slightly by one point though it remains high at 54 per cent. Enns says it's too early to say Carney's honeymoon with Canadians is over, although the data suggest the prime minister may have found his popularity ceiling. 'We may have seen the high watermark for Liberal support, and as we head into the fall and some of these issues start to become more pointed… I would imagine that would be an interesting juncture for the government,' Enns said. 'It wouldn't surprise me to see a very gradual narrowing of that gap' between Liberals and Conservatives come the fall, he added. The polling firm Leger surveyed 1,617 respondents as part of an online survey conducted between Aug. 1-4. Online surveys cannot be assigned a margin of error because they do not use random sampling of the population. National Post cnardi@ Our website is the place for the latest breaking news, exclusive scoops, longreads and provocative commentary. Please bookmark and sign up for our politics newsletter, First Reading, here .
Edmonton Journal
36 minutes ago
- Edmonton Journal
Canadians are torn about whether to put their elbows up or down in U.S. trade war: poll
OTTAWA — Canadians are split on whether Canada should go into trade negotiations with the U.S. with elbows up or down when it comes to retaliatory tariffs, according to a new poll. Article content The Leger/Postmedia poll suggests that 45 per cent of Canadians still believe Canada's position vis-à-vis U.S. President Donald Trump should be 'elbows up.' That means that Canada should impose counter-tariffs on all new U.S. border levies, even if it risks further retaliation from the Trump administration. Article content Article content Article content But on the other hand, 41 per cent of respondents said they'd prefer Canada's response be 'measured' and focus more on getting a new trade deal even if it includes some tariffs on Canadian goods. Article content Article content The split among Canadians puts Prime Minister Mark Carney in somewhat of an 'awkward position' as he must navigate conflicting views on how to deal with an erratic and unpredictable Trump administration, said Leger executive vice-president Andrew Enns. Article content On the one hand are those who still believe in the 'eye for an eye' approach with the U.S., and on the other hand is the growing number of Canadians who favour a slightly more conciliatory and measured approach. Article content 'I think there's been a bit of a tempering, a bit of a diminishment of the 'elbows up' aggressive approach. It's still very present, and you know, not to be ignored,' Enns said. Article content 'But I certainly would say that there's a stronger sort of view now starting to show up in Canadian opinion that says, 'Well hold on here, maybe we ought to think this through, let's not be hasty.' Article content Article content The new survey is in stark contrast to polling just six months ago, when a substantial 73 per cent of respondents told Leger they supported dollar-for-dollar retaliatory tariffs against any U.S. border levy on Canadian goods. Article content Article content For Enns, it means many Canadians — and particularly Gen Xers and Boomers over 55 years old who expressed particularly fierce Canadian patriotism earlier this year — are having a moment of 'sober second thought' as the trade war with the U.S. drags on. Article content The shift in public sentiment could also be a reflection of the change in tone from Carney himself. During the Liberal leadership race in February, Carney said he supported suggestions of dollar-for-dollar retaliatory tariffs. Article content But since becoming prime minister, he has not retaliated to any of Trump's new tariffs on such key Canadian sectors as steel, aluminum and automobiles. In fact, he suggested last week that Canada may remove some tariffs on U.S. imports if it's beneficial to Canadian industry.
