DOJ Sues Judges Over Order Against Quick Migrant Removals (1)

The Trump administration sued all of the judges on the Maryland federal trial court over a standing order that prevented the government from deporting a person for two business days after a habeas challenge is filed.

The Justice Department alleged in a Tuesday complaint that the order, signed by Chief Judge George L. Russell III in May, is a “particularly egregious example of judicial overreach interfering with Executive Branch prerogatives.”

“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 complaint says.

The lawsuit against the entire bench is unusual and marks the latest escalation of the Trump administration’s battle with the federal judiciary. President Donald Trump and his allies have criticized judges by name who’ve ruled against the administration, while congressional Republicans eye ways to curb judicial power legislatively.

It also comes as a Maryland federal judge has presided over a challenge to the removal of Kilmar Abrego Garcia to El Salvador, which the administration acknowledged was a wrongful deportation.

Attorney General Pam Bondi described the court’s standing order as part of a pattern of judges exceeding their authority and ruling against the administration’s actions.

“The American people elected President Trump to carry out his policy agenda: this pattern of judicial overreach undermines the democratic process and cannot be allowed to stand,” Bondi said in a statement.

The court’s standing order, first issued May 21 and amended a week later, states that once a detained immigrant in Maryland files a habeas petition, or a request to be released from custody, the federal government may not remove them from the US until 4 p.m. of the second business day.

The move responds to an increase in habeas petitions filed outside of normal business hours from immigrants facing imminent deportation, which has “created scheduling difficulties and resulted in hurried and frustrating hearings,” the order says.

The chief deputy clerk for the court told Bloomberg Law last month that the court’s standing orders are approved by all of its judges.

The administration argued in the 22-page complaint that the implementation of the order hinders federal immigration authorities from enforcing immigration law, and that the automatic pause effectively amounts to a federal court injunction or temporary retraining order without meeting the necessary requirements.

“Inconvenience to the Court is not a basis to enter an injunction, and filings outside normal business hours, scheduling difficulties, and the possibility of hurried and frustrating hearings are not irreparable harms,” the complaint says.

The Justice Department has also requested that the Maryland court be recused from hearing the lawsuit, and that a federal judge from another district be tapped to preside over the litigation.

The lawsuit is certain to raise questions of judicial immunity, as judges typically can’t be sued over their official acts.

US District Judge Paula Xinis, who sits on the Maryland bench, has expressed frustration over government lawyers’ handling of the litigation involving Abrego Garcia. She indicated in April that she was weighing holding contempt proceedings into whether the administration violated her orders.

Abrego Garcia has since been returned to the US to face federal charges on human smuggling charges. The Justice Department has asked Xinis to dismiss the case, and Abrego Garcia’s attorneys have asked the judge to issue sanctions against the administration.

The case is United States et al v. Russell, D. Md., No. 1:25-cv-02029, complaint 6/24/25