Trump Administration Sues 15 Federal Judges as Tension Escalates

• The Trump administration escalated tensions with the judiciary by suing all 15 Maryland federal judges over an order halting migrant deportations
• At the heart of the legal clash is a judicial directive aimed at protecting immigrant rights and preserving court oversight
• Legal scholars have called the move unprecedented, raising concerns over the erosion of constitutional norms

The Trump administration ignited a legal firestorm on Tuesday by filing a lawsuit against all 15 federal judges in Maryland.

The move came in response to a court order that blocked the immediate deportation of migrants seeking legal review of their detentions, intensifying the administration’s ongoing conflict with the federal judiciary over President Donald Trump’s executive immigration powers.

At the centre of the dispute is an order issued in May by Chief Judge George L. Russell III.

The directive prevents the government from deporting immigrants until 4 p.m. on the second business day after a habeas corpus petition is filed in Maryland’s district court.

The administration argues this delay contravenes a Supreme Court ruling and hampers the president’s authority to execute immigration laws.

“It’s extraordinary,” remarked Laurie Levenson, a professor at Loyola Law School. “And it’s escalating DOJ’s effort to challenge federal judges.”

Maryland deportation order sparks legal stand-off

The controversial order was designed to uphold court jurisdiction, safeguard access to legal representation for immigrant petitioners, and ensure the government has the opportunity to present its case.

Judge Russell later amended the order, citing logistical challenges following a spike in after-hours habeas filings which led to “hurried and frustrating hearings.”

Attorney General Pamela Bondi condemned the judiciary’s interventions, stating: “President Trump’s executive authority has been undermined since the first hours of his presidency by an endless barrage of injunctions designed to halt his agenda… this pattern of judicial overreach undermines the democratic process and cannot be allowed to stand.”

Meanwhile, criticism poured in from Democratic circles. Rep. Glenn Ivey of Maryland denounced the lawsuit as “an unprecedented attack on the federal judiciary,” warning that the Trump administration was seeking to “delegitimise the courts.”

Legal experts alarmed by Trump’s unorthodox approach

Hofstra University constitutional law professor James Sample described the administration’s lawsuit as a breach of established legal norms.

“Normally when parties are on the losing side of an injunction, they appeal the order — not sue the court or judges,” he noted.

Sample acknowledged that while injunctions are typically extraordinary measures, the administration’s practice of relocating detainees to prevent legal intervention had prompted the Maryland court’s response. “The judges here didn’t ask to be put in this unenviable position,” he said. “Faced with imperfect options, they have made an entirely reasonable, cautious choice.”

The lawsuit named Judge Paula Xinis, who had previously ruled that the deportation of Kilmar Abrego Garcia to El Salvador was unlawful. Lawyers for Garcia accused the government of contempt for flouting court orders and demanded punitive sanctions.

No comment was offered by the Maryland district court, while the Trump administration requested all Maryland judges recuse themselves from the case, seeking instead a judge from another jurisdiction.

As the legal clash deepens, the case raises pivotal questions about the separation of powers, the scope of executive authority, and the judiciary’s role in safeguarding individual rights.

Source: Legit.ng