Latest news with #JudgeCullen
CBS News
3 days ago
- Politics
- CBS News
Lawyer for Maryland federal judges warns "nightmare scenario" if Trump wins immigration lawsuit
Trump-appointed Judge Thomas Cullen, who will soon rule on the administration's unprecedented immigration-related lawsuit against every federal judge in Maryland, expressed skepticism at a pivotal hearing in Baltimore on Wednesday. Cullen was brought in from Virginia to oversee the case because all federal judges are defendants. At the heart of the case is immigration enforcement and Maryland District Court Judge George Russell III's order that every deportation must be halted for two business days to give migrants time for a hearing and due process. Elizabeth Hedges, the Department of Justice lawyer representing the Trump administration, told WJZ Investigator Mike Hellgren, "No comment" as she left court. Hedges argued the government's interests were being harmed by Judge Russell's order. The lawsuit said Maryland's 15 federal judges "have used and abused their equitable powers to interfere with the prerogative of the Executive Branch to an unprecedented degree." It also claimed "…a sense of frustration and a desire for greater convenience do not give defendants license to flout the law. Nor does their status within the judicial branch." "Defendants' lawless standing orders are nothing more than a particularly egregious example of judicial overreach interfering with Executive Branch prerogatives, and thus undermining the Democratic process," the Department of Justice alleged. One of the judges being sued, Paula Xinis, has repeatedly criticized the Trump administration for wrongly deporting Kilmar Abrego Garcia from Maryland to El Salvador. Last month, she ordered his return to Maryland. "I'm not here to answer your questions in this case; you're here to answer mine," Xinis told federal prosecutors at a July hearing. She said they have "destroyed the presumption of regularity. I can't presume anything is regular in this irregular case." Private attorney Paul Clement, who represents the Maryland judges against the Trump lawsuit's claims, has long been an advocate for conservative causes, and in his first term, Trump considered Clement to replace Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the Supreme Court. On Wednesday, Clement called the Trump administration's lawsuit "a nightmare scenario" and "an extraordinary action that should be dismissed." It is far from the administration's only recent clash with the judiciary, and followed the firing of several immigration judges by email last month. Judge Cullen said he will make a ruling by Labor Day in this case but expects it will be challenged. The Maryland judges have called the Trump Administration's lawsuit "disruptive" to the federal court system.
Fox News
3 days ago
- Politics
- Fox News
DOJ faces off with entire Maryland federal bench over automatic pauses in deportation cases
A judge appeared skeptical on Wednesday of the Department of Justice's arguments related to an unusual lawsuit the Trump administration brought against all 15 district court judges in Maryland challenging a court order. Judge Thomas Cullen of the Western District of Virginia questioned the DOJ over the lawsuit, which alleges that the Maryland district court overstepped its authority by imposing a standing order that automatically pauses deportation cases for two days when they are first filed. Cullen, a Trump appointee, told DOJ attorneys early on in the hearing he was wary of their position. "One of the things about me is that I don't have a very good poker face, and you probably picked up on the fact that I have some skepticism," Cullen said. The Virginia federal judge is presiding over the case in Baltimore because the Maryland judges recused themselves. Cullen said he would issue a decision by Labor Day on whether he would block the standing order. DOJ attorney Elizabeth Hedges argued during the hearing that the Maryland court's order had the effect of "tampering with the [U.S.] attorney general's discretion" over immigration enforcement matters. The order requires clerks to immediately enter administrative injunctions that last two business days in cases brought by alleged illegal immigrants who are challenging their detentions or removals. The injunctions have the effect of temporarily barring the Department of Homeland Security from deporting or changing the legal status of an immigrant until a judge has time to review the case. Hedges argued that the judges automatically enter the orders in these cases even if the court lacks jurisdiction in some of them. The lawsuit, brought in June, comes as the Trump administration has taken an aggressive public posture against individual federal judges who have blocked enforcement of many of the president's executive actions, including in areas of immigration, education and federal agency cuts. President Donald Trump has complained his agenda has been hamstrung and has called for the impeachment of certain judges whose orders he disagrees with. But the Supreme Court has, in many cases, overrode judges and allowed Trump to temporarily implement his executive actions while the lawsuits proceed in the lower courts. Attorney Paul Clement, arguing on behalf of the Maryland judges, said during the hearing that there were "less confrontational" alternatives to resolving differences with the courts than suing every member of a district court. Clement, a renowned conservative lawyer who served as former President George Bush's solicitor general, defended the standing order, calling it a "modest effort to preserve the judiciary's ability to perform its constitutionally assigned role." Chief Judge George Russell of Maryland said he issued the standing order as a scheduling convenience to make sure the "status quo" is preserved when a deportation case is filed. He cited a "recent influx" of cases involving detained immigrants that were being filed after normal court hours, including on weekends and holidays. The lawsuit represents a test of the independence of the judiciary branch. Clement said it was "fundamentally incompatible" with the separation of powers. "We just don't have a tradition of suits that are executive versus judiciary, executive versus Congress, Congress versus the executive," Clement said, adding that "we don't really expect one branch to sue another to try to vindicate its institutional interests." The lawsuit also comes as Trump's mass deportation agenda has encountered some roadblocks as immigrants raise court challenges and appeals to their removals. Perhaps the most prominent instance of this occurred in Maryland, where Judge Paula Xinis, now one of the 15 defendants in the lawsuit against the judges, ordered the government to return Salvadoran national Kilmar Abrego Garcia to the U.S. after the Trump administration admitted to the court it mistakenly deported him to a prison in El Salvador. Abrego Garcia has since been returned and is facing criminal charges of transporting illegal immigrants. He has pleaded not guilty.
New York Times
3 days ago
- Politics
- New York Times
Judge Appears Skeptical of Lawsuit Against Federal Bench in Maryland
A federal judge signaled on Wednesday that he had doubts about an extraordinary lawsuit the Trump administration filed against the entire federal bench in Maryland, challenging a standing order intended to briefly slow down the government's ability to deport undocumented immigrants. During a hearing in Federal District Court in Baltimore, the judge, Thomas T. Cullen, said he had some reservations about the suit, making his remarks even before a lawyer for the Justice Department had the chance to offer any arguments on behalf of the administration. 'I don't have a very good poker face,' Judge Cullen told the department lawyer, Elizabeth Hedges, as she stepped up to the podium to address him. 'And you probably picked up on the fact that I have some skepticism.' It was clear from the outset of the hearing just how unusual the case was, which amounted to the administration's latest attack on the judiciary. Because all 15 federal judges in Maryland were named as defendants, Judge Cullen, who normally sits in Roanoke, Va., was asked to cross state lines to preside over the matter. The judges themselves were excused from being in the courtroom and some in fact were on the bench in other proceedings as the hearing unfolded. Moreover, the judges managed to get Paul Clement, a former solicitor general who has argued more than 100 cases in front of the Supreme Court, to represent them. Out of the gate, Mr. Clement emphasized the bizarre nature of the government's efforts. 'This is, to state the obvious,' he told Judge Cullen, 'not an ordinary lawsuit.' The administration filed the suit in June, about a month after the chief federal judge in Maryland, George L. Russell III, issued the standing order saying that immigrants who sought to contest their removal from the country by filing what is known as a habeas petition would automatically be granted a two-day reprieve from being expelled by the government. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
Associated Press
3 days ago
- Politics
- Associated Press
Trump administration's lawsuit against all of Maryland's federal judges meets skepticism in court
BALTIMORE (AP) — A judge on Wednesday questioned why it was necessary for the Trump administration to sue Maryland's entire federal bench over an order that paused the immediate deportation of migrants challenging their removals. 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.
