Maryland’s US Court Halts Fast Removals of Detained Migrants (1)

The Maryland federal district court adopted a new order that blocks the immediate removal of any detained foreign citizen who has filed a habeas petition.

The standing order, dated Wednesday, comes as a judge on the court has presided over the case of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a Salvadoran man who the Trump administration has acknowledged was wrongfully deported.

The order says the government or respondents to any petition for writ of habeas corpus filed on behalf of a detained foreign citizen are “enjoined and restrained” from removing them from the continental United States or altering their legal status, as long as they’re identified in court papers.

Chief US District Judge George L. Russell III said in the order that it was issued to “preserve existing conditions” and any potential jurisdiction the court might have over the case. It’s also meant to make sure the petitioners are able to participate in the consideration of their requests and to give the government a “fulsome opportunity” to respond to the petition in court, according to the document.

The order says it may also help courts weigh claims made in the case through any “in-court testimony that may be offered.”

The order cites the All Writs Act, which permits courts to issue orders “necessary or appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions and agreeable to the usages and principles of law.” It also quotes a 1966 Supreme Court ruling that recognized “a limited judicial power to preserve the court’s jurisdiction or maintain the status quo by injunction pending review of an agency’s action through the prescribed statutory channels.”

The block on removal is in effect until 4 p.m. on the second business day after the petition is filed, unless the judge presiding over the case extends it.

The standing order was first reported on by the Volokh Conspiracy, a legal blog.

David Ciambruschini, the chief deputy clerk for the US District Court for the District of Maryland, said the court’s standing orders are approved by all of its judges. He said the court will adopt such orders from time to time to address issues in certain cases or kinds of litigation. In response to a question about why this order was issued, Ciambruschini pointed to the reasons given in the order.

Nancy Morawetz, a professor at New York University School of Law, said the standing order appears to “provide a small amount of breathing space before a judge has to rule.”

Morawetz said that habeas petitions don’t provide any relief “until a judge hears the request for an order and issues an order.”

She said getting an order often requires emergency filings by the petitioner, which could be difficult because of the time needed to prepare those papers. Morawetz said there can also be time gaps in cases, even when judges act quickly.

US District Judge Paula Xinis, who is presiding over the Abrego Garcia case, has been frustrated with the Trump administration as officials have failed to answer questions about how they are facilitating his return, as ordered by the US Supreme Court.

“The Trump administration is undertaking removal of noncitizens on unprecedented scale, with unprecedented rates of error, and with unprecedented contempt for law. If courts are adapting their procedures to deal with that new reality, good,” said Lee Kovarsky, a law professor at the University of Texas at Austin.”