The Trump administration introduced a constitutional curveball by suing the entire bench of the US District Court for the District of Maryland, 15 sitting judges, in their own courthouse over the court’s ruling in which automatically pauses any deportation from Maryland for two business days when a detainee files a fresh habeas petition.
Is Maryland’s deportation pause order, judicial overreach?
The Trump administration filed the lawsuit in Baltimore, which argued that Maryland’s standing order defied both US Supreme Court precedent on injunctive relief and the clear intent of Congress. The Justice Department labels the order an “egregious example of judicial overreach,” portraying it as yet another entry in a growing list of courtroom interventions that have hamstrung the administration’s ability to carry out its immigration agenda.
The order was signed by Chief US District Judge George Russell after a prolonged legal battle over the deportation of Kilmar Abrego Garcia—a Salvadoran national with an American wife and child—who was removed to El Salvador despite a 2019 immigration court ruling shielding him from return due to the threat of gang violence.
Why sue judges instead of appealing orders?
To contest a trial court's decision, a party would need to do so within the same case or request that an appellate court overturn the ruling.
"It is a shocking move by the Justice Department that is simply unprecedented," said Marin Levy, a professor at Duke University School of Law. "And it seems like part of a strategic attempt to attack the courts rather than any sort of good faith litigation."
Fight for democracy versus docket management.
US Attorney General Pam Bondi stated that President Trump was elected to implement his policy agenda, and that continued judicial interference not only disrupts that mandate but also poses a serious threat to the integrity of the democratic process.
"Every unlawful order entered by the district courts robs the Executive Branch of its most scarce resource: time to put its policies into effect," the Justice Department stated in the lawsuit. "In the process, such orders diminish the votes of the citizens who elected the head of the Executive Branch."
For the judiciary, it is a stress test of institutional independence. Do judges, like other litigants, have to defend themselves in court for interpreting the law?
Read: Court to rule on release of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, man mistakenly deported to El Salvador; may face possible ICE custody
Is Maryland’s deportation pause order, judicial overreach?
The Trump administration filed the lawsuit in Baltimore, which argued that Maryland’s standing order defied both US Supreme Court precedent on injunctive relief and the clear intent of Congress. The Justice Department labels the order an “egregious example of judicial overreach,” portraying it as yet another entry in a growing list of courtroom interventions that have hamstrung the administration’s ability to carry out its immigration agenda.
The order was signed by Chief US District Judge George Russell after a prolonged legal battle over the deportation of Kilmar Abrego Garcia—a Salvadoran national with an American wife and child—who was removed to El Salvador despite a 2019 immigration court ruling shielding him from return due to the threat of gang violence.
Why sue judges instead of appealing orders?
To contest a trial court's decision, a party would need to do so within the same case or request that an appellate court overturn the ruling.
"It is a shocking move by the Justice Department that is simply unprecedented," said Marin Levy, a professor at Duke University School of Law. "And it seems like part of a strategic attempt to attack the courts rather than any sort of good faith litigation."
Fight for democracy versus docket management.
US Attorney General Pam Bondi stated that President Trump was elected to implement his policy agenda, and that continued judicial interference not only disrupts that mandate but also poses a serious threat to the integrity of the democratic process.
"Every unlawful order entered by the district courts robs the Executive Branch of its most scarce resource: time to put its policies into effect," the Justice Department stated in the lawsuit. "In the process, such orders diminish the votes of the citizens who elected the head of the Executive Branch."
For the judiciary, it is a stress test of institutional independence. Do judges, like other litigants, have to defend themselves in court for interpreting the law?
Read: Court to rule on release of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, man mistakenly deported to El Salvador; may face possible ICE custody
You may also like
Rules published by assembly on hill area governance manipulated, alleges ex-Manipur CM Biren Singh
Just one dose of 'magic mushroom' compound was given to cancer patients, the long-term results shocked researchers
RRB NTPC 2025: Undergraduate Level CBT 1 Admit Card For 3445 Vacancies Soon At rrb.digialm.com; Details Here
JPSC APO Recruitment 2025: Opportunity for graduate candidates in law, salary of Rs 1,51,100 per month; Apply here..
Essential UPSC General Knowledge: Economic and Social Development Insights
