Federal court tosses DOJ suit against Maryland judges over immigration rules

BALTIMORE (CN) — A federal judge on Tuesday dismissed the Justice Department’s lawsuit against the U.S. District of Maryland and its 15 judges over a rule to temporarily freeze immigration cases, finding that any ruling other than dismissal would “offend the rule of law.”

U.S. District Judge Thomas Cullen, a Donald Trump appointee from the Western District of Virginia who was assigned to the case by the Fourth Circuit, ruled that the judges had judicial immunity against such lawsuits and that the executive branch had no right to challenge the rule via federal lawsuit.

The Justice Department filed the suit on June 24, naming all 15 federal judges on the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland as defendants, to challenge Chief U.S. District Judge George Russell III’s block on any active removal efforts of immigrants for 48 business hours.

The so-called “automatic injunctions” are placed in each case for two business days, to allow a federal judge to be assigned and have a chance to consider the petition before the immigrant can be removed, as was the case for immigrants like Kilmar Ábrego García, who was deported under the Alien Enemies Act.

The Maryland federal judges argue that the lawsuit created a “nonjusticiable dispute” between two co-equal branches of government and Russell’s standing orders were quintessential judicial acts and thus protected by judicial immunity.

Further, they say the Trump administration’s assertion that issuing standing orders for immigration cases exceeded Russell’s powers clearly fails, as there is not a right to challenge the standing order. Instead, the administration could have challenged the order’s specific application in a certain case or brought the issue to the Fourth Circuit’s Judicial Council.

“This court agrees — nearly across the board,” Cullen wrote. “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 long-standing constitutional tradition, and offend the rule of law.”

While the Trump administration could have challenged the standing order via the usual course, such as appealing any of the affected habeas cases or filing a rules challenge with the Judicial Council, “the executive decided to sue — and in a big way.”

“As events over the past several months have revealed, these are not normal times — at least regarding the interplay between the executive and this coordinate branch of government,” Cullen wrote. “It’s no surprise that the executive chose a different, and more confrontational, path entirely.”

Cullen noted that Russell borrowed the immigration rule from “the playbook of the federal courts of appeal,” many of which place temporary stays of removal when an immigrant detainee challenges a final order of removal from the Board of Immigration Appeals.

The Fourth Circuit, which oversees the District of Maryland, has a rule freezing removal efforts for 14 days to give the court time to fully consider the case.

“In limiting its stay to two business days, the District of Maryland’s recent stopgap measure appears considerably more modest,” Cullen said.

Russell issued the amended standing order on May 21, in response to Trump’s invocation of the Alien Enemies Act to summarily deport over 200 migrants to the infamous CECOT mega prison in El Salvador, including Ábrego García.

The temporary stay was automatically placed in Ábrego García’s second habeas petition, filed Monday following his sudden rearrest by Immigration and Customs Enforcement at the agency’s Baltimore field office. The Salvadoran native who has lived in Maryland with his U.S. wife and children was arrested and deported, then returned to the U.S. in June but held in prison before being released Friday. The Trump administration says it will deport him to Uganda.

The suit has raised separation-of-power concerns among court observers amid the administration’s campaign to seemingly punish federal judges it views as obstructing its far-right agenda, in particular its mass deportation efforts. One of the named defendants, U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis, presided over Ábrego García’s case and has drawn particular ire from the administration.

Last month, the Justice Department filed a misconduct complaint against Chief U.S. District Judge James Boasberg in Washington after he expressed concern that the administration would not comply with court orders at a closed-door session of the Judicial Conference in March.

In a footnote, Cullen raised concern about the Trump administration slamming federal judges who rule against the government as “radical,” “activists,” “politically minded,” “rogue,” “unhinged” and other labels.

“Although some tension between the coordinate branches of government is a hallmark of our constitutional system, this concerted effort by the executive to smear and impugn individual judges who rule against it is both unprecedented and unfortunate,” Cullen wrote.

Cullen noted that the administration can appeal his ruling.

The Department of Homeland Security, another named plaintiff in the suit, did not respond to a request for comment.

Follow @Ryan_Knappy