A federal judge dismissed a lawsuit filed by the Trump administration against all 15 federal judges in Maryland, rejecting the Justice Department’s bid to curtail court power in fast-moving immigration cases.
The judgment characterized the lawsuit as a major constitutional standoff, with Judge Thomas Cullen stating that the Justice Department could not pursue a “constitutional free-for-all.”
Advertisement
Cullen, who was appointed to the bench by President Donald Trump during his first term and brought in from another district to handle the case in Maryland, ruled that the government lacked the legal right — known as standing — to bring the challenge and that judges are immune from suits brought by the executive branch.
“Any fair reading of the legal authorities cited by Defendants leads to the ineluctable conclusion that this court has no alternative but to dismiss. To hold otherwise would run counter to overwhelming precedent, depart from longstanding constitutional tradition, and offend the rule of law,” Cullen wrote in the 39-page decision.
The Justice Department sued all federal judges on the lower-level District Court of Maryland after the court’s chief judge implemented a rule that would automatically and temporarily prevent the Trump administration from removing an immigration detainee from the United States if the detainee had filed a court challenge to their removal.
Williams & Connolly represented a group of retired federal judges who filed an amicus brief asking an appeals court in Virginia to turn down the Trump administration’s request to bring back a case against all the U.S. trial judges in Maryland.
They said it was unprecedented and a threat to the separation of powers.
Almost a dozen retired federal judges, chosen by both Republican and Democratic presidents and represented by the company Williams & Connolly, filed the brief.
Advertisement
They said the lawsuit was an “extraordinary, unprecedented broadside” against the power of the courts and a threat to the separation of powers and core judicial functions.
They said that these kinds of standing orders are common ways to handle the docket, and that suing the whole court over one has never happened in all the years they have worked together.
The case (United States v. Russell, 4th Cir. No. 25-2004) shows how the executive branch’s immigration goals and habeas corpus review by the courts can clash.
Maryland judges justified the order as a narrow safety net for the process, not as a broad ban on deportations.
This is a big case of separation of powers, but courts have been skeptical of the DOJ’s strategy so far.
Advertisement
The Fourth Circuit’s final decision could set a standard for how far people can sue the courts themselves.
This comes as Republican National Committee Chairman Joe Gruters says Republicans may outspend Democrats this election cycle, a dramatic reversal from past campaigns where Democrats often held the fundraising advantage.
Speaking on Breitbart, Gruters argued Republicans are entering the midterm cycle with significantly stronger financial positioning and unprecedented coordination across the conservative movement.
Host Mike Slater asked Gruters to put the reported $70 million Democrats spent in Virginia’s recent redistricting battle into perspective.
“How much money is that for the parties?” Slater asked.
Advertisement
Gruters responded by painting a bleak financial picture for Democrats.
“The DNC has minus 4 million [dollars], and it wasn’t the DNC that plowed $70 million: It was the collective,” Gruters said.
“So, if you look at the collective on the right, we may have $800 million,” he continued.
“The collective on the left may have $350 million, and when you have the court, there’s gonna be a court case that is ruled on in the next week or two, coordinated campaign limits, which will magnify that, which will allow full coordination and allow the parties to spend at the candidate rate, which is massive for us,” he said.
Gruters said the financial landscape could mark a historic break from previous election cycles.
This article may contain commentary
which reflects the author’s opinion.
