12-08-2025
Judges Rip Trump Admin's Deportation Lawsuit—'Uniquely Disruptive'
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources.
Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content.
Fifteen federal judges in Maryland, led by Chief Judge George L. Russell III, are asking a court to dismiss what they call an "unprecedented and uniquely disruptive" lawsuit filed by the Trump administration over a rule that briefly pauses deportations.
In a reply filed on Monday, the judges argued that the suit was legally baseless and unnecessary. They also said it threatened judicial independence.
The administration seeks to block the judges' standing order requiring a two-business-day delay before deporting anyone who files a habeas petition challenging removal.
Newsweek has contacted the Department of Justice for comment via email outside regular office hours.
Why It Matters
The Trump administration's lawsuit against all 15 federal judges in Maryland over a two-day deportation pause is an unprecedented clash over immigration enforcement, judicial independence and the separation of powers. The administration says the order unlawfully hinders its authority to enforce immigration laws; the judges argue that it is a lawful use of their inherent power to preserve jurisdiction before someone is deported.
A ruling for the administration could weaken judicial immunity, limit trial courts' ability to manage urgent cases and set a precedent for presidents to sue entire courts. A ruling for the judges would reinforce limits on executive power and affirm that interbranch disputes should be resolved through normal appeals, with consequences extending well beyond Maryland.
What To Know
The dispute began with Russell's May 21 order, which requires that habeas petitioners facing deportation receive a short pause before removal.
The Justice Department sued in June, calling the order an "automatic injunction" issued outside a specific case and an intrusion on immigration enforcement powers.
In Monday's filing, the judges countered that the administration could have appealed or sought Judicial Council review instead of suing. They warned that this "powerful and disruptive tool" had never been used in disputes between government branches.
Attorney General Pam Bondi speaks on recent Supreme Court rulings in the briefing room at the White House in Washington, D.C., on June 27.
Attorney General Pam Bondi speaks on recent Supreme Court rulings in the briefing room at the White House in Washington, D.C., on June 27.
Joe Raedle/Getty
No Legal Basis for the Suit
The judges argued that the 1895 Supreme Court case of In re Debs, on which the administration has relied, was "miles removed from this case." They said the precedent was not only inapplicable but also fundamentally different in nature. That case, the judges said, involved the executive asking courts to help carry out its powers—not to restrain the judiciary.
They also cited precedent granting federal judges immunity from suits challenging judicial acts. The administration argued that Pulliam v. Allen (1984) allowed injunctive relief against judges, but critically, Pulliam dealt with state judges under § 1983 only, not federal judges. In United States v. Russell et al., the Maryland judges countered that "court after court has disagreed after Pulliam … with good reason."
Congress later limited Pulliam's reach for that very reason through the 1996 Federal Courts Improvement Act, barring injunctive relief against a judicial officer for actions taken in a judicial capacity, unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable.
Even on the Merits, the Administration Fails
The judges further argued that their standing order was a lawful exercise of inherent judicial power to protect jurisdiction, comparing it to temporary stays issued by appellate courts.
"The exercise of that inherent authority here—a modest, two-business-day hold … is eminently reasonable, entirely lawful, and far less of an imposition on the Executive than comparable appellate-court stays," the filing said.
Citing the All Writs Act, the judges said all federal courts—not only appellate courts—could issue orders "necessary or appropriate" to aid their jurisdiction.
While urgent deportation cases were once rare at the district level, recent statutory changes have made them more common. The judges warned that if the suit proceeded, future administrations could sue other courts in similar disputes.
What People Are Saying
Attorney General Pam Bondi said in a June 25 statement: "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. … This pattern of judicial overreach undermines the democratic process and cannot be allowed to stand."
Laurie Levenson, a professor at Loyola Law School, said of the lawsuit, according to the Associated Press: "It's extraordinary, and it's escalating DOJ's effort to challenge federal judges."
Stephen I. Vladeck, a professor at Georgetown Law, said, per The New York Times: "I think we are seeing an unprecedented attempt by the federal government to portray district judges not as a coordinate branch of government, but as nothing more than political opposition."
Alan Rozenshtein, a professor at University of Minnesota Law School, said, as quoted by The New York Times: "The administration has completely lost the trust of the judiciary—and rightly so."
What Happens Next
The Justice Department has not filed a reply to the judges' latest arguments. The lawsuit remains pending before a judge from outside the Maryland district, as all local judges have recused themselves.
For now, the Maryland standing order remains in place, continuing to require a brief delay before the removal of any individual who files a habeas petition in the district. The judges' filing closes with a request for dismissal: "The Court should dismiss this unprecedented and uniquely disruptive lawsuit."
