RICHMOND, Virginia — A federal appeals court heard arguments Friday over the Trump administration’s unusual lawsuit against every federal judge in Maryland, a dispute testing the limits of executive-branch challenges to judicial procedures. The Justice Department wants to revive a case dismissed by a lower court. At issue is a Maryland standing order that briefly pauses removals when detained immigrants file new legal challenges.
The order adopted by the U.S. District Court for Maryland provides an automatic two-business-day delay in deportation for certain detainees who file habeas petitions contesting their custody. Habeas corpus is a legal mechanism for asking a court to review the lawfulness of detention. The judges said the measure responded to a surge in filings involving people who feared imminent removal before a court could examine their claims.
Instead of contesting the order through an individual immigration case, the Justice Department sued the district’s judges as a group in June 2025. Government lawyer Sarah Welch told the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that the standing order improperly interferes with federal immigration enforcement. She argued that the government has legal authority to seek relief when its sovereign interests are harmed.
Because all Maryland federal judges were defendants, the case was assigned to a federal judge in Virginia. Judge Thomas Cullen, who was appointed by Trump, dismissed it. His opinion sharply criticized the administration’s decision to sue the judges collectively. The appeal now asks whether that dismissal was correct, not whether every immigrant who files a petition is entitled to remain in the country.
During Friday’s hearing, members of the appeals panel questioned whether the government had identified a valid legal basis for suing an entire judicial district. The administration invoked a nineteenth-century Supreme Court precedent, In re Debs, to support its position. Judges explored whether that precedent, involving federal interests in a different context, could be stretched to cover this institutional dispute.
Attorney Paul Clement, representing the Maryland judges, argued that the lawsuit threatens the separation of powers. The administration disputes that characterization and says courts should not create blanket obstacles to lawful removal operations. One appellate judge cautioned that the novelty of a lawsuit does not automatically make it unlawful. The exchange underscored that the legal question remains contested.
The underlying two-day delay is narrow but consequential. For a person facing imminent deportation, a short period may allow a judge to determine whether a detention challenge deserves consideration. For immigration authorities, an automatic pause can affect scheduling and execution of removal orders. The case asks who has authority to set that procedure and how another branch of government may challenge it.
Separation of powers is more than an abstract constitutional phrase here. Federal judges must be able to hear cases without improper pressure, while the executive branch has legitimate interests in enforcing laws enacted by Congress. Courts routinely review government action, but a lawsuit naming an entire court raises distinct institutional questions about remedies and judicial independence.
The appeals panel did not announce a final decision in the reported hearing. Readers should not mistake probing questions from judges for a ruling. The next development will be a written decision explaining whether the administration may pursue its lawsuit and, if so, under what legal theory. Until then, both sides’ arguments remain arguments rather than settled law.
Sources and reporting credits
Original reporting and reference material consulted for this independently written article:
