A federal judge has dismissed the Trump administration’s extraordinary attempt to sue every member of Maryland’s federal bench, calling the lawsuit a legally baseless effort to undermine judicial independence and vilify judges who rule against the White House.
In his opinion, U.S. District Judge Thomas Cullen, a Trump appointee, wrote that the case “would run counter to overwhelming precedent, depart from longstanding constitutional tradition, and offend the rule of law.” He added that “in their wisdom, the Constitution’s framers joined three coordinate branches to establish a single sovereign,” and warned that disputes between branches must be resolved in ways that honor the Judiciary’s constitutional role.
The Justice Department had filed the lawsuit in June after Maryland’s chief district judge, George L. Russell III, issued an order halting the immediate deportation of immigrants contesting their removals. The Trump administration argued that this automatic pause obstructed the president’s authority over immigration enforcement.
RELATED STORIES
But Maryland’s judges, represented by conservative lawyer Paul Clement, countered that the lawsuit was really an attempt to weaken the courts’ power to review immigration proceedings at a time when the administration was accelerating deportations. Clement told the court, “The executive branch seeks to bring suit in the name of the United States against a co-equal branch of government. There really is no precursor for this suit.”
Watch a recent episode of The BreakDown podcast below and subscribe to our channel PanaGenius TV for latest episodes.
Judge Cullen, presiding from Virginia because all 15 of Maryland’s federal judges were named as defendants, ruled that the administration lacked the authority to bring the case and that judges were immune from such lawsuits. He said the government should have challenged Russell’s order through the normal appeals process, describing that route as the “tried-and-true recourse available to all federal litigants.”
“One branch’s alleged infringement on another’s exclusive power does not license a constitutional free-for-all,” Cullen wrote. In a pointed footnote, he observed that administration officials had recently labeled judges “rogue,” “unhinged,” and “crooked,” remarks he said were part of “a concerted effort by the Executive to smear and impugn individual judges who rule against it.”
The controversy stems from Russell’s order, which blocks the government from deporting immigrants seeking review of their detention until two business days after they file a habeas corpus petition. The order, later amended, aimed to ensure immigrants could participate in proceedings, consult attorneys, and give the government time to respond after the court experienced late-night filings that led to “hurried and frustrating hearings.”
Justice Department lawyers accused the Maryland judges of prioritizing convenience over the law, writing that “a sense of frustration and a desire for greater convenience do not give Defendants license to flout the law.” Among those named in the suit was Judge Paula Xinis, who earlier found that the Trump administration had illegally deported Kilmar Abrego Garcia to El Salvador, a case that became a flashpoint in the administration’s broader immigration crackdown.
READ ALSO: Trump wields presidential power to tilt 2026 midterms in GOP’s favor
The White House, according to an AP report, offered no comment on the ruling, but the decision underscores the dramatic and unusual escalation in the Trump administration’s clashes with the federal judiciary, one that Judge Cullen signaled was both unprecedented and constitutionally out of bounds.
