DOJ Sues Maryland Federal Bench Over Automatic Two-Day Deportation Pause

(MARYLAND) The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) is locked in a rare courtroom clash with the entire federal bench in Maryland over a standing order that automatically pauses deportations for about two business days when a person files a habeas corpus petition in the state. At a hearing in Baltimore on August 14, 2025, a federal judge took up the DOJ’s request to block the order and the judges’ move to dismiss the case, signaling a decision is expected by Labor Day (early September 2025). The outcome will shape how fast removals can proceed in Maryland and how far trial courts can go to protect people from wrongful deportation.

How the pause works

The order, issued in May 2025 by Maryland U.S. District Court Chief Judge George Russell III, grew out of the case of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, who was mistakenly deported to a Salvadoran prison without due process.

The court says the pause is a simple administrative step that preserves its power to review emergency filings before a person is removed, avoiding the high stakes of trying to fix a wrongful deportation after the fact. In practice, the order gives the court a brief window to see the petition and decide whether to take action.

The standing order:

• Automatically pauses deportation for about two business days after a habeas petition is filed.
• Does not decide the underlying case or block removal beyond that short period, unless a judge issues a separate order.
• Does not grant release from custody, cancel deportation orders, or guarantee a longer stay.

DOJ’s position: the pause goes too far

DOJ lawyers argue the policy is procedurally flawed and intrudes on federal authority to carry out removals, especially under President Trump’s enforcement priorities that favor faster actions and sometimes mass removals.

They claim the standing order:

• Was implemented the wrong way procedurally.
• Impermissibly slows removals the government is prepared to execute.
• Causes “irreparable harm” by disrupting enforcement plans.

The government views speed as a key enforcement feature and says even a brief delay can complicate planning around transfers, flight bookings, and coordinated operations.

A rare lawsuit naming judges

The DOJ’s lawsuit is unusual because it names all 15 judges of the Maryland federal bench, the court’s chief clerk, and the court itself. That prompted a debate over judicial immunity.

Positions on immunity:

• DOJ: This is not a normal judicial act, so immunity should not apply.
• Maryland court lawyers: Judges are immune for official acts; DOJ should have used usual channels (e.g., an appeal in a specific case or a request to the 4th Circuit Judicial Council).

At the August 14 hearing, Maryland court representatives argued the order has caused little practical injury to the government’s removal plans so far and framed the pause as a modest step to protect jurisdiction and due process. The presiding judge said a ruling would come soon.

Key tension: immigration enforcement speed versus the risk of sending someone out of the country before a court can review their petition.

Why two business days matter

For people in removal proceedings, those two business days can be life-changing. The pause can:

• Allow time to reach a lawyer.
• Give time to correct records errors.
• Provide an opportunity to flag a legal claim that might be lost if removal happens overnight.

The case of Kilmar Abrego Garcia illustrates the harm the court seeks to prevent: a mistaken, fast-moving deportation that was difficult to undo once a plane had left.

Legal pathways and potential outcomes

So far, the DOJ has left open the option to appeal the standing order as applied in specific cases—a more traditional path that many legal scholars favor. Maryland court lawyers say that is the route the government should take.

Possible judicial outcomes:

1. If the judge denies the DOJ’s request for a preliminary injunction:
   • The standing order remains in place while the case proceeds or is appealed.
2. If the judge grants the injunction:
   • Removals can proceed without the automatic pause unless a judge issues a separate stay.

This ruling will influence whether other districts adopt similar safeguards or whether trial courts’ ability to handle emergency immigration filings is narrowed.

Broader legal questions

The dispute raises national implications and several core questions:

• How much can a district court do to protect its ability to hear emergency petitions in immigration cases?
• Where is the line between a neutral court rule and a policy choice that affects national removal operations?
• Should the government challenge such an order by suing judges directly or by appealing decisions in individual cases?

According to analysis by VisaVerge.com, the case could test how far local federal courts can manage immigration emergencies without making policy. That analysis mirrors concerns from both sides: the court’s need to prevent wrongful removals and the DOJ’s interest in a uniform national enforcement approach.

Where to follow the case

The public can track official filings and announcements on the U.S. Department of Justice website at https://www.justice.gov.

If the dispute moves to the 4th Circuit, the issues—judicial immunity, court authority, and timing—will receive broader consideration and possible guidance for other districts.

Practical takeaway for families and lawyers

• Filing a habeas petition in Maryland currently triggers a short, automatic pause that buys crucial time.
• The pause is a breathing space for the court to check whether a claim needs rapid intervention; it is not a guaranteed shield against removal.
• The standing bench in Maryland argues the safeguard preserves due process; the DOJ contends it undermines enforcement and exceeds the court’s role.

Behind the briefs are people with families, jobs, and fears of return—making the short pause a narrow, human-centered tool aimed at preventing errors like the one that sent Kilmar Abrego Garcia to a Salvadoran prison.

The judge’s decision, due by Labor Day (early September 2025), will determine whether Maryland keeps that pause in place while the larger legal fight continues.