Trump Administration Sues Maryland Judges Over Immigration Removal Order

Key Takeaways

• On June 24, 2025, DOJ sued all 15 Maryland federal judges over a standing order blocking immediate immigrant removals.
• The Maryland order mandates a two-business-day pause on deportations after habeas corpus filings to ensure due process.
• DOJ argues the order unlawfully hampers immigration enforcement and requests Maryland judges’ recusal for outside judge assignment.

On June 24, 2025, the Trump administration’s Department of Justice (DOJ) took the rare step of suing all 15 federal district judges in Maryland. The lawsuit challenges a standing court order that temporarily blocks the immediate removal of immigrants who file habeas corpus petitions—legal requests to challenge their detention or deportation. This legal battle, unfolding in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, has set off a fierce debate about the limits of executive power, the role of the judiciary, and the rights of immigrants facing removal from the United States 🇺🇸.

Who is involved?
The plaintiffs are the Trump administration, represented by the Department of Justice and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). The defendants are all 15 federal district judges in Maryland, including Judge Paula Xinis, who presided over a high-profile case involving the wrongful deportation of a Salvadoran man, Kilmar Abrego Garcia.

What is at stake?
At the heart of the dispute is a standing order issued by the Maryland federal court in May 2025. This order requires court clerks to automatically grant a two-business-day pause—called an administrative injunction—on any deportation or change in legal status when a detained immigrant files a habeas corpus petition. The Trump administration argues that this order unlawfully restrains its ability to enforce immigration law. The Maryland judges, though not commenting directly due to their status as defendants, have made clear through their order that the pause is meant to protect immigrants’ access to legal counsel and ensure due process.

Why now?
The lawsuit comes after a recent Supreme Court decision allowed the Trump administration to resume deporting migrants to third countries with minimal notice, overturning a lower court’s block on the practice. The DOJ’s new legal action is seen as an attempt to further limit court oversight of immigration enforcement and speed up removals.

How is the case unfolding?
Because every Maryland federal judge is named as a defendant, the DOJ has asked that all recuse themselves from hearing the case. The government wants a judge from another district to be assigned or for the case to be transferred elsewhere. This move highlights the extraordinary nature of the lawsuit and the deep constitutional questions it raises.

The Maryland Standing Order: What Does It Do?

In May 2025, the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland issued a standing order in response to a surge in emergency lawsuits from immigrants facing imminent removal. The order requires that:

• Whenever a detained immigrant files a habeas corpus petition (a legal request to challenge detention or deportation),
• The court clerk must immediately enter a two-business-day administrative injunction—a temporary pause on deportation or changes in legal status.

This pause is designed to:

• Give immigrants time to access legal counsel,
• Allow the court to review the case before any removal takes place,
• Prevent wrongful deportations, such as what happened in the Abrego Garcia case.

Habeas corpus is a legal term that means “you shall have the body.” In simple words, it’s a way for someone in detention to ask a court to decide if their detention or planned deportation is lawful.

Why Did the Trump Administration Sue?

The Trump administration, through the Department of Justice and DHS, argues that the Maryland court’s order is an “egregious example of judicial overreach.” In their view, the order:

• Unlawfully restrains the Executive Branch’s authority to enforce immigration law,
• Disrupts the efficient management of removals,
• Is not case-specific, but instead applies automatically to all habeas petitions, regardless of the facts.

The DOJ’s lawsuit seeks to have the standing order declared unlawful and to stop the judges from enforcing it. The administration also claims that the order causes “irreparable harm” to the government by delaying removals and interfering with immigration enforcement.

The Process: Step-by-Step

To understand the practical effects, here’s how the process works under the Maryland court’s order:

1. Filing a Habeas Petition:
   A detained immigrant in Maryland files a habeas corpus petition, challenging their detention or planned removal.

2. Automatic Injunction:
   The court clerk, following the standing order, immediately enters a two-business-day administrative injunction. This temporarily stops any deportation or change in legal status.

3. Judicial Review:
   The case is scheduled for a hearing. The immigrant can present their case and access legal counsel during this pause.

4. DOJ Lawsuit:
   The Department of Justice files a lawsuit to invalidate this process, arguing it is not tailored to individual cases and oversteps the court’s authority.

5. Recusal Request:
   Because all Maryland judges are defendants, the DOJ asks them to recuse themselves and requests the case be assigned to an outside judge or transferred to another district.

Real-Life Impact: The Abrego Garcia Case

The Maryland court’s standing order was prompted by the case of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a Salvadoran national. He was deported before his legal challenge could be heard, even though he had filed a habeas petition. After a court order, he was returned to the United States 🇺🇸. This case highlighted the risk of wrongful removals and the need for a pause to ensure legal rights are protected.

What Are the Arguments on Each Side?

Trump Administration’s Position

• Executive Authority:
  The administration says the standing order unlawfully limits its power to enforce immigration law and manage removals.
• Efficiency:
  Officials argue that the automatic pause disrupts the removal process and could encourage more emergency lawsuits.
• Judicial Overreach:
  The DOJ claims the order is an overstep by the judiciary, interfering with the executive branch’s responsibilities.

Maryland Federal Judges

• Due Process:
  The judges’ order is meant to ensure immigrants have a fair chance to challenge their detention or removal.
• Access to Counsel:
  The pause gives immigrants time to find a lawyer and prepare their case.
• Preventing Wrongful Deportations:
  The order aims to stop situations like the Abrego Garcia case, where someone is deported before their legal challenge is heard.

Immigrant Advocates

• Protection of Rights:
  Advocates say the order is necessary to prevent wrongful removals and protect access to legal remedies.
• Vulnerable Populations:
  Many immigrants facing removal have limited English skills or legal knowledge and need time to seek help.

Legal Community

• Judicial Independence:
  Legal experts, including Adam Bonica of Stanford, call the lawsuit unprecedented and warn it could threaten the independence of the judiciary.
• Separation of Powers:
  There are concerns about the precedent of suing judges for official acts and the broader impact on the balance of power between branches of government.

Broader Context: Immigration Enforcement and Legal Challenges

The Trump administration has taken a tough stance on immigration enforcement, pushing for faster removals and fewer legal obstacles. Over the past several years, the administration has:

• Faced frequent legal challenges from immigrants using habeas corpus and other legal tools,
• Sought to suspend habeas corpus rights for immigrants, a move taken only four times in U.S. history,
• Challenged court orders that delay or block removals,
• Won a recent Supreme Court decision allowing it to resume certain deportations with minimal notice.

The Maryland district court became a focal point after the Abrego Garcia case, leading to the standing order now at the center of the lawsuit.

What Happens Next?

Because all Maryland federal judges are defendants, none can preside over the case. The DOJ has asked for an outside judge or for the case to be transferred to another district. The next steps include:

• Assignment of a new judge from outside Maryland or transfer to another district,
• Hearings on the legality of the standing order,
• Possible appeals to higher courts, including the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court.

The outcome could set a national precedent for how district courts can issue standing orders affecting immigration enforcement.

Implications for Immigrants, Courts, and the Public

For Immigrants

• If the DOJ wins:
  Immigrants in Maryland could face immediate removal even after filing legal challenges, making it much harder to contest deportation or detention.
• If the standing order stands:
  Immigrants will continue to have a brief window to seek legal help and have their cases heard before removal.

For the Courts

• Judicial Independence:
  The lawsuit raises concerns about whether judges can be sued for official acts and how much power courts have to check executive actions.
• Separation of Powers:
  The case could reshape the balance between the judiciary and the executive branch in immigration matters.

For the Public

• Due Process:
  The case tests the strength of legal protections for vulnerable groups and the ability of courts to provide checks and balances.
• National Precedent:
  The outcome could influence how other courts handle emergency immigration cases and standing orders.

Expert Analysis and Perspectives

Legal scholars widely agree that suing an entire federal bench is almost unheard of. According to analysis by VisaVerge.com, this lawsuit marks a significant escalation in the Trump administration’s efforts to limit court oversight of immigration enforcement. Critics argue that the administration is trying to erode due process protections for immigrants and limit the judiciary’s ability to check executive power.

Supporters of the administration say the standing order is an unlawful restraint on executive authority and disrupts immigration enforcement. Immigrant advocates, on the other hand, stress the importance of protecting access to legal remedies and preventing wrongful removals.

What Should Immigrants and Their Families Do?

• Stay Informed:
  Follow updates from official sources like the U.S. Department of Justice and the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland.
• Seek Legal Help:
  If you or a loved one is facing removal, consult with an immigration attorney as soon as possible.
• Know Your Rights:
  Filing a habeas corpus petition can temporarily pause removal in Maryland, but this could change depending on the outcome of the lawsuit.
• Monitor Case Status:
  Check court dockets and press releases for the latest developments.

Official Resources

• U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland
• U.S. Department of Justice
• Department of Homeland Security
• Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals

Looking Ahead: National Impact and Future Developments

The lawsuit’s outcome will have far-reaching effects. If the Trump administration prevails, similar standing orders in other jurisdictions could be challenged or overturned. This could make it much harder for immigrants to pause deportations while their legal cases are heard. If the Maryland court’s order is upheld, it could serve as a model for other courts seeking to protect due process rights in emergency immigration cases.

Ongoing litigation and appeals are likely, possibly reaching the Supreme Court. The case will shape the future of immigration enforcement, judicial independence, and the rights of immigrants in the United States 🇺🇸.

In summary:
The Trump administration’s lawsuit against all Maryland federal judges over a standing order pausing immediate deportations after habeas filings is an extraordinary legal and constitutional confrontation. The case is ongoing, with significant implications for judicial independence, due process rights, and the future of immigration enforcement in the United States 🇺🇸. For the latest updates, refer to official court dockets and press releases from the DOJ and DHS.

Learn Today

Habeas Corpus → A legal petition allowing detained immigrants to challenge the lawfulness of their detention or deportation.
Standing Order → A persistent court directive that applies automatically to cases, like pausing deportations after habeas filings.
Administrative Injunction → A temporary court-imposed pause on deportations or status changes to allow legal review.
Recusal → When judges remove themselves from a case due to conflict of interest or impartiality concerns.
Separation of Powers → The constitutional principle dividing government authority among executive, legislative, and judicial branches.

This Article in a Nutshell

The Trump administration sued Maryland’s 15 federal judges, challenging a court rule pausing deportations after habeas petitions, sparking debates on judicial authority, immigration rights, and executive power limits in the U.S. This unprecedented suit questions the balance between legal protections for immigrants and efficient immigration enforcement.
— By VisaVerge.com