In an unprecedented legal move, the Trump administration has filed a lawsuit against all 15 federal judges serving in Maryland’s district court. The suit challenges a court order that temporarily blocks the deportation of migrants seeking judicial review of their removal cases — escalating a long-simmering clash between the executive branch and the federal judiciary over immigration enforcement.
The Department of Justice argues that the Maryland court’s ruling oversteps judicial authority and infringes on President Donald Trump’s power to carry out immigration policy.
“This is extraordinary,” said Laurie Levenson, a law professor at Loyola Law School. “It signals the DOJ’s growing effort to aggressively confront the courts.”
At the center of the legal battle is a May order issued by Chief Judge George L. Russell III. The order prevents federal immigration officials from deporting any individual who files a habeas corpus petition in the Maryland district court, until at least 4 p.m. on the second business day following the filing. The delay is intended to give petitioners a fair chance to be heard by a judge before removal.
But the Trump administration claims this automatic pause contradicts a prior Supreme Court decision and obstructs the president’s constitutional duty to enforce immigration laws.
DOJ Accuses Judiciary of Overreach
Attorney General Pamela Bondi defended the lawsuit, saying the judiciary has repeatedly overstepped its role.
“From day one, President Trump has faced an endless barrage of court injunctions designed to stop his policies,” Bondi said in a statement. “This kind of judicial interference undermines the will of the voters and the constitutional powers of the executive branch.”
The administration has asked that all Maryland judges be removed from hearing further challenges to the policy and is requesting a judge from another state be assigned to the case. A spokesperson for the Maryland district court declined to comment.
The lawsuit follows mounting frustration from Trump and his allies over judicial rulings that have slowed or blocked major parts of his immigration agenda. At one point, Trump even called for the impeachment of a federal judge who ordered deported immigrants to be flown back to the U.S. — a suggestion that drew rare public rebuke from Chief Justice John Roberts, who warned that disagreement with a ruling is not grounds for impeachment.
Lawsuit Targets Judge Who Blocked Deportation
One of the judges named in the suit, Paula Xinis, previously ruled that the deportation of Kilmar Abrego Garcia to El Salvador violated the law. His attorneys are now seeking contempt penalties against the government, arguing it ignored court orders to return him.
In defense of the temporary hold on deportations, Judge Russell explained that the purpose was to preserve the court’s jurisdiction and ensure immigrants had access to legal representation. He said the court had been overwhelmed by late-night filings, making it nearly impossible to determine detainees’ whereabouts before deportation proceedings began.
Legal Experts Warn of Dangerous Precedent
James Sample, a constitutional law expert at Hofstra University, called the lawsuit against the judges a troubling departure from legal norms.
“Typically, when a party disagrees with a ruling, they file an appeal. Suing the judges themselves is highly unusual and risks undermining the integrity of the judicial system,” Sample said.
He noted that while the administration may be right to argue that injunctions are extraordinary legal tools, the court’s response was driven by the government’s own pattern of quickly moving detainees to make legal review difficult.
“These judges didn’t ask for this confrontation,” Sample said. “They’re doing what courts are supposed to do — ensuring there’s a fair process. The administration, on the other hand, seems intent on bypassing it entirely.”
