Trump's justice department sues entire bench of Maryland judges over order restricting deportations
Donald Trump's justice department has sued the federal judiciary in Maryland over an order that bars the government from deporting undocumented immigrants for at least one day after they file a legal challenge to their detention.
Chad Gilmartin, a spokesperson for Pam Bondi, the US attorney general, said in a post on X on Wednesday: 'This is just the latest action by @AGPamBondi's DOJ to rein in unlawful judicial overreach.'
The state's federal court issued an order last month aimed at managing a wave of lawsuits challenging the Trump administration's moves to swiftly deport undocumented migrants.
Maryland's federal court was the site of one of the most contentious cases under Trump's deportation policy when Kilmar Ábrego García, a Salvadoran national, was deported and later sent back to the US after the supreme court ordered the administration to 'facilitate' his return.
Ábrego García is currently facing federal charges of unlawfully trafficking undocumented immigrants. Last week, the supreme court also ruled that the administration can resume deporting migrants to countries they are not from without additional due process requirements.
The Department of Justice lawsuit against Maryland's federal judges includes Paula Xinis, the judge overseeing Ábrego García's case. Xinis is considering whether to sanction government officials for their initial refusal to facilitate Ábrego García's release from custody.
The legal back-and-forth is part of an ongoing battle between the Trump administration and the federal judiciary over primacy in immigration matters, with some legal experts describing the move as an attack on judicial independence.
Government lawyers argue in the lawsuit that the action 'involves yet another regrettable example of the unlawful use of equitable powers to restrain the executive'.
The complaint alleges that Maryland's chief judge, George Russell, issued an 'unlawful, antidemocratic' order granting a two-day stay of deportation to any detainee in immigration custody who files a petition alleging wrongful detention.
But the move to sue an entire bench of federal judges in a single district illustrates pressure coming from the Trump administration on the judiciary to fall in line with the administration's policies.
Sign up to This Week in Trumpland
A deep dive into the policies, controversies and oddities surrounding the Trump administration
after newsletter promotion
'A sense of frustration and a desire for greater convenience do not give defendants license to flout the law,' justice department attorneys wrote. 'Nor does their status within the judicial branch.'
But the lawsuit was quickly condemned by Wes Moore.
'After blatantly violating judicial orders, and directing personal attacks on individual judges, the White House is turning our Constitution on its head by suing judges themselves,' the governor of Maryland said in a statement. 'Make no mistake: this unprecedented action is a transparent effort to intimidate judges and usurp the power of the courts.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
14 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Children can skip classes with LGBT books, Supreme Court rules
Parents can take their children out of school if they are reading books with gay characters in them, the Supreme Court has ruled. Christian and Muslim parents in Maryland sued to keep their elementary school children out of certain lessons when storybooks with LGBT+ characters were read, claiming it violated their constitutional rights. At the same time, the Supreme Court also ruled to block judges from thwarting Donald Trump's move to ban birthright citizenship, the 14th amendment, which makes people born on US soil automatically American regardless of parentage. The LGBT+ ruling overturned a lower court's refusal to force public schools in Montgomery County to allow some children to opt out of the classes if desired. The lower court had rejected the argument made by a group of parents who sued the school district, claiming it violated the Constitution's First Amendment protections for the free exercise of religion. The court's conservative justices were in the majority and its liberal justices dissented from the ruling. The plaintiffs in the LGBT+ case - who are Muslim, Roman Catholic and Ukrainian Orthodox - said in their lawsuit that the storybooks 'promote one-sided transgender ideology, encourage gender transitioning and focus excessively on romantic infatuation - with no parental notification or opportunity to opt out.' Montgomery County said it ended the opt-outs in 2023 when the mounting number of requests to excuse students from these classes became logistically unworkable and raised concerns of 'social stigma and isolation' among students who believe the books represent them and their families. Opt-outs are still allowed by the district for sex education units of health classes. Meanwhile, the birthright citizenship ruling authored by conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett, prevents other judges in the court circuit from blocking Mr Trump's legislation. On the first day of his second term, Mr Trump signed an executive order directing federal agencies to refuse to recognise the citizenship of children born in the US who do not have at least one parent who is an American citizen or lawful permanent resident. More than 150,000 newborns would be denied citizenship annually under the directive, according to the plaintiffs who challenged it, including the Democratic attorneys general of 22 states as well as immigrant rights advocates and pregnant immigrants. It did not put the birthright citizenship order into effect or address the legality of ending birthright citizenship. Significantly, the ruling could apply to all attempts by federal judges to block any executive orders from Mr Trump, not just birthright citizenship. The Supreme Court case argued federal judges should not be able to issue nationwide, or 'universal,' injunctions, in theory paving the way to allow widespread enforcement of Mr Trump's agenda with minimal legal pushback. A 1898 US Supreme Court ruling in a case called United States v Wong Kim Ark set precedent for guaranteeing that children born in the US to non-citizen parents are entitled to American citizenship. The Trump administration has argued that the court's ruling in that case was narrower, applying to children whose parents had a 'permanent domicile and residence in the US.' Following Friday's ruling, Mr Trump claimed a victory. He wrote in a Truth Social post: 'GIANT WIN in the United States Supreme Court! 'Even the birthright citizenship hoax has been, indirectly, hit hard. It had to do with the babies of slaves (same year!), not the SCAMMING of our immigration process. 'Congratulations to attorney general Pam Bondi, solicitor general John Sauer, and the entire DOJ.' Mr Trump has previously argued that the 14th amendment was passed in the wake of the Civil War and was meant to protect 'babies of slaves' rather than children of illegal migrants. 'Birthright citizenship was not meant for people taking vacations to become permanent citizens of the United States of America, and bringing their families with them, all the time laughing at the 'suckers' that we are... It had to do with Civil War results, and the babies of slaves who our politicians felt, correctly, needed protection,' he said in a Truth Social post last month.
The Guardian
16 minutes ago
- The Guardian
US attacks on Iran redraw calculus of use of force for allies and rivals around globe
For US allies and rivals around the world, Donald Trump's strikes on Iran have redrawn the calculus of the White House's readiness to use force in the kind of direct interventions that the president said he would make a thing of the past under his isolationist 'America First' foreign policy. From Russia and China to Europe and across the global south, the president's decision to launch the largest strategic bombing strike in US history indicates a White House that is ready to employ force abroad – but reluctantly and under the extremely temperamental and unpredictable leadership of the president. 'Trump being able to act and being willing to act when he saw an opportunity will definitely give [Vladimir] Putin pause,' said Fiona Hill, a former Trump national security adviser and one of the principal authors of the UK's strategic defence review. While Trump has pulled back from his earlier warnings about potential regime in Iran, going from tweeting 'UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER' to 'NOW IS THE TIME FOR PEACE!' within 72 hours, he has nonetheless reinforced Russian perceptions of the United States as an unpredictable and aggressive rival that will not unilaterally abandon its ability to use force abroad. 'It has some pretty dire warnings for Putin himself about what could happen at a time of weakness,' Hill said. 'It will just convince Putin even more that no matter what the intent of a US president, the capability to destroy is something that has to be taken seriously.' It also shows a shift in the calculus in Washington DC, where hawks – along with Israel's Benjamin Netanyahu – were able to convince Trump that launching a strike on Iran was preferable to pursuing negotiations that had not yet failed. That could have knock-on effects for the war in Ukraine, where Republicans and foreign policy hardliners have grown more vocal about Putin's attacks on cities and the need for a tougher sanctions strategy. Although he hasn't changed his policy on resuming military support to Ukraine, Trump has is publicly more exasperated with Putin. When Putin offered Trump to mediate between Israel and Iran, Trump said he responded: 'No, I don't need help with Iran. I need help with you.' In the immediate term, however, the strikes on Iran are unlikely to have an impact on Russia's war in Ukraine. 'I don't see it as having a big impact on the Ukraine war, because although Iran was very helpful at the beginning stages in providing Russia with [Shahed] drones, Russia has now started manufacturing their own version and have actually souped them up,' said Max Boot, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, during a roundtable discussion. More broadly, Trump's attacks could undermine a growing 'axis of resistance' including Russia and China, given the pair's reluctance to come to Iran's aid beyond issuing strong condemnations of the attacks during security discussions under the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) being held in China this week. 'It also shows that Russia is not a very valuable friend, because they're not really lifting a finger to help their allies in Iran and returning all the help that they've received,' Boot added. The strike could also have implications for China, which has escalated military pressure around Taiwan in recent months and has been holding 'dress rehearsals' for a forced reunification despite US support for the island, according to testimony from Adm Samuel Paparo, the commander of US Indo-Pacific Command. Trump had promised a tough line on China, and many of his top advisers are either China hawks or believe that the US military should reposition its forces and focus from Europe and the Middle East to Asia in order to manage China as a 'pacing threat'. Sign up to This Week in Trumpland A deep dive into the policies, controversies and oddities surrounding the Trump administration after newsletter promotion Yet his previous hesitance to use US force abroad could have emboldened Beijing to believe that the US would not come to the direct aid of Taiwan if a military conflict would break out – the one wild card in what would otherwise likely be a lopsided conflict between China and Taiwan. Experts cautioned that the stakes are far different, and the conflicts too far removed, in order to draw direct conclusions about Trump's readiness to intervene if a conflict broke out between China and Taiwan. Trump's administration appears further embroiled in Middle East diplomacy than it wanted and its pivot to focus on China has been delayed as well. And while some close to the military say the strikes have regained credibility lost after some recent setbacks, including the withdrawal from Afghanistan, others have said that it won't send the same message for military planners in Moscow or Beijing. 'We shouldn't conflate willingness to use force in a very low risk situation with deterring other types of conflicts or using force when it's going to be incredibly costly – which is what it would be if we were to come to the defence of Taiwan,' said Dr Stacie Pettyjohn of the Center for a New American Security during an episode of the Defense & Aerospace Air Power podcast. Around the world, US rivals may use the strikes to reinforce the image of the US as an aggressive power that prefers to use force rather than negotiate – a message that may break through with countries already exhausted with a temperamental White House. 'The fact that it all happened so fast, there wasn't much multilateral involvement or chance for diplomacy, I think, is something Russians can point to as an indication of, you know, imperialism to the global south,' said Aslı Aydıntaşbaş, a fellow in the Center on the United States and Europe at Brookings during a conference call. 'But also in their talking points to United States and western allies, they will definitely make a point of highlighting this as something great powers do, and in a way that normalizes Russia's language on its own [conflicts].
BBC News
24 minutes ago
- BBC News
Supreme Court decision on birthright citizenship broadens Trump's power
The Supreme Court on Friday handed a significant victory to Donald Trump - and future American presidents - when curbing lower courts' power to block executive Trump was beaming as he addressed reporters at the White House briefing room podium, calling it a "big, amazing decision" which the administration is "very happy about".He said it was a "monumental victory for the constitution, the separation of powers and the rule of law".The court's decision not only impacts Trump's birthright citizenship order, but also emboldens him to enact many of his other policy actions that have been temporarily thwarted by similar injunctions. Impact on birthright citizenship The Supreme Court has opened the door for the Trump administration to no longer grant automatic citizenship to everyone born on American soil – at least for the moment. Now the White House will have to implement its plan, which will be no easy Friday, the nation's highest court allowed Donald Trump's executive order to end birthright citizenship to go into effect in a month's time, while leaving room for lower courts to curb the impact on those who have standing to traditionally handle processing birth certificates, and many do not record the citizenship of the parents. Democratic-run state governments will be in no rush to do so, no matter what the Trump administration may Justice Amy Coney Barrett, writing for the majority, left the door open for states to make the case that a more broad block on Trump's birthright citizenship action is sets up big legal battles to come."As the States see it, their harms — financial injuries and the administrative burdens flowing from citizen-dependent benefits programs — cannot be remedied without a blanket ban on the enforcement of the Executive Order," Barrett wrote. "The lower courts should determine whether a narrower injunction is appropriate, so we leave it to them to consider these and any related arguments."President Trump described the court's decision on Friday as a "giant win". He added that the "birthright citizenship hoax" has been "indirectly, hit hard" and that the decision would prevent "scamming of our immigration process".Trump's Attorney General Pam Bondi said on Friday that the Supreme Court will decide whether the US will end birthright citizenship in October during its next session. Broadening presidential power The court's decision to limit the power of lower court federal judges to issue nationwide injunctions will have immediate, wide-ranging consequences. Both Democratic and Republican presidents have often criticised what they say are ideological jurists in federal district courts who have been able to singlehandedly block executive actions and even legislation passed by doing away automatic citizenship for the children of undocumented migrants born on US soil is at the centre of this high profile case, there are a number of other actions taken by Trump in recent months that have also been held up by lower-level Trump's inauguration to April 29, the Congressional Research Service counts 25 such instances. Lower courts have blocked the president's cuts to foreign assistance, diversity programmes and other government agencies, limited his ability to terminate government employees, put other immigration reforms on hold and suspended White House issued changes to election the Supreme Court's decision in this case, the administration is in a much stronger position to ask courts to allow it to push forward on many of these the Biden presidency, conservative judges prevented Democrats from enacting new environmental regulations, offering student loan forgiveness, modifying immigration rules. Courts blocked changes to normalised immigration status for some undocumented migrants during Barack Obama's presidency, as well, and prevented him from making more white collar employees eligible for overtime all these types of cases, courts will ultimately be able to step in and halt presidential actions that they deem illegal or Supreme Court in its opinion said, " The lower courts shall move expeditiously to ensure that, with respect to each plaintiff, the injunctions comport with this rule and otherwise comply with principles of equity."But that will come further along in the judicial process, at the appellate and Supreme Court level. In the meantime, presidents – Donald Trump and his successors, whether they are Republicans or Democrats - will have more time and space to act.
