Latest news with #ThomasCullen
Reuters
4 days ago
- Politics
- Reuters
Trump-appointed judge expresses 'skepticism' about DOJ case against Maryland judges over immigration order
Aug 13 (Reuters) - A federal judge on Wednesday said he was skeptical of the U.S. Department of Justice pursuing an unusual lawsuit against every federal judge in Maryland to challenge a court order that blocked President Donald Trump's administration from immediately deporting migrants contesting their removal. U.S. District Judge Thomas Cullen, a Trump appointee from Roanoke, Virginia overseeing the case, during a hearing in Baltimore questioned why the Justice Department was entitled to sue a co-equal branch of government in order to challenge a court order it opposes. "I think you probably picked up on the fact that I have some skepticism," Cullen told a Justice Department lawyer. The DOJ filed the case after the Maryland court in May adopted a standing order that automatically blocks for two business days the deportation of migrants in the state who file new habeas lawsuits challenging their detention. The order was issued as the Republican president's administration moved to fulfill Trump's pledge to conduct mass deportations and cited a "recent influx of habeas petitions concerning alien detainees purportedly subject to improper and imminent removal from the United States." A habeas petition is a legal action challenging the legality of a person's detention. Rather than challenge the policy by pursuing an appeal in one such lawsuit, the Justice Department in June sued the 15 judges and the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, arguing it was a lawful policy. The DOJ has called the order an "egregious example of judicial overreach," following a series of injunctions in lawsuits that have prevented the Trump administration from fully executing his policies. "Every single time one of these orders gets entered, our sovereign interests in enforcing duly-enacted immigration law are being inhibited," Elizabeth Hedges, a Justice Department lawyer, said at Wednesday's hearing. But Cullen said that by suing the judges, the Justice Department was "taking it up about six notches" compared to prior instances when judicial policies have been challenged by prosecutors. He suggested the simpler path would have been for the administration to contest the order at the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, and, if necessary, the U.S. Supreme Court. "It would have been more expeditious than, you know, the two months we've spent on this," Cullen said. The Justice Department often represents the judiciary in litigation, but the unusual posture of the case forced the judges to instead retain Paul Clement, a prominent conservative lawyer at Clement & Murphy. Clement said that while he was "honored and happy" to represent the judges, being placed in that position was "no ordinary matter," nor was Cullen having to travel from Roanoke to hear the case. He said the disruptions demonstrated why the Justice Department shouldn't be allowed to pursue what he called an unprecedented case when more traditional options for challenging the order were available. "All of the alternatives that are available avoid that kind of nightmare scenario," Clement said. "That nightmare scenario is part of the reason that we don't have a tradition of suits that are executive versus judiciary." The judge said he would issue a ruling "as quickly as I can by Labor Day," while noting that he would not have the final word on the matter. The case is United States v. Russell, U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, No. 25-cv-02029. For the United States: Elizabeth Hedges of the U.S. Department of Justice For the Maryland judges: Paul Clement of Clement & Murphy Read more: Conservative litigator Paul Clement to defend Maryland federal judges in DOJ case Trump administration sues Maryland federal judges over order blocking deportations Wisconsin judge arrested in immigration case retains top conservative lawyer
The Independent
4 days ago
- Politics
- The Independent
Trump administration's lawsuit against all of Maryland's federal judges meets skepticism in court
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.
