A federal judge has given a complete free pass to a long list of other federal judges – the entirety of the judicial branch in Maryland – in a fight with the administration of President Donald Trump over the nation’s immigration and deportation agenda.
It was Thomas Cullen who ruled for the judges in the state by dismissing the action brought by the Department of Justice over the Maryland court’s decision to grant automatic delays to the deportation cases that the Trump administration brought in the state.
The fight is over Trump’s agenda to secure American borders and remove illegal aliens, especially criminals, through deportation procedures.
The judges in Maryland worked against that by adopting a plan, from George Russell, the chief judge, to give deportation defendants an automatic stay in their cases.
That would halt the DOJ’s enforcement of the nation’s immigration laws for a multi-day period, regardless of the evidence at hand and without any court proceedings.
The Department of Homeland Security said the so-called standing rule for the judges to interfere in the government’s prosecution of deportation cases without review or hearing was against the law.
It seems there had been an increase in the workload because of the cases, and the judges were upset.
“A sense of frustration and a desire for greater convenience do not give Defendants license to flout the law. Nor does their status within the judicial branch,” the case charged.
The Washington Examiner said Cullen dismissed the DOJ’s action, claiming allowing it to continue would “run counter to overwhelming precedent, depart from longstanding constitutional tradition, and offend the rule of law.”
Cullen refused to recognize the Executive Branch arguments that the order was unlawful because it was inconsistent with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, as they were designated for a “special class” of offenders, were beyond the power of the court, and violated procedures for local court rules.
Cullen claimed, “In their wisdom, the Constitution’s framers joined three coordinate branches to establish a single sovereign. That structure may occasionally engender clashes between two branches and encroachment by one branch on another’s authority. But mediating those disputes must occur in a manner that respects the Judiciary’s constitutional role.”
The DOJ had argued, “Every unlawful order entered by the district courts robs the Executive Branch of its most scarce resource: time to put its policies into effect. In the process, such orders diminish the votes of the citizens who elected the head of the Executive Branch.”
Cullen actually instructed the DOJ to potentially raise its concerns “in a habeas proceeding” in an appeals court.
“The U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, where the challenged order remains in place, has been the venue for multiple lawsuits against the Trump administration, as the left-leaning bench has become a popular place for opponents of the administration to bring their legal challenges,” the Examiner confirmed.
JUST IN: Never seen this before — the Justice Department is suing … the entire federal district court bench in Maryland over its standing order requiring an automatic two-day stay in habeas cases.https://t.co/PH7xOJgeol pic.twitter.com/YgNQHnmyvq
— Kyle Cheney (@kyledcheney) June 25, 2025
The 22-page complaint names U.S. District Chief Judge George L. Russell III and every Article III judge in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland as a defendant. The court itself is also named as a defendant. https://t.co/YvTpIp3qIl pic.twitter.com/ixhXS51bAb
— National Law Journal (@TheNLJ) June 25, 2025
The Maryland court’s standing rule, in fact, disrupts the DHS procedures to deport or change the legal status of the immigrant.
It was one of the defendant judges, Paula Xinis, who had ordered the Trump administration to return to the United States a Salvadoran national named Kilmar Abrego Garcia, who was brought back to face human trafficking charges.
The judges, demanding dismissal, had claimed they are “absolutely immune” “despite the “potential merits of the executives’ argument that defendants exceeded their power in issuing the standing orders.”
Cullen reached back to England to build his case to dismiss the complaint against the judges, citing a Supreme Court dissent, which said, “[S]uits for injunctive relief against a judge could not be maintained either at English common law or in the English courts of equity. And even the equitable remedy that the Court found to be a ‘common-law parallel to the § 1983 injunction at issue [t]here’—’the King’s prerogative writs’—were never used against judges on the sovereign’s courts.”
The post Federal judge gives pass to anti-Trump judges in fight over illegal alien deportations appeared first on WND News Center.
This post originally appeared on WND News Center.
