Maryland Judge’s Skepticism of DOJ Lawsuit: Dismissal and Appeal

A federal judge dismissed the Trump DOJ’s lawsuit against Maryland’s federal judges on August 26, 2025, calling it “novel and potentially calamitous,” and the Justice Department’s appeal is now pending at the Fourth Circuit after the appellate court refused in February 2026 to let the government walk away and erase the ruling.¹²

The case, United States of America et al. v. Chief Judge George L. Russell III et al., was the first time any presidential administration had ever sued every sitting federal district judge in a single district.³

The Standing Order That Triggered the Suit

On May 21, 2025, Chief Judge George L. Russell III issued Standing Order 2025-01 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland. When a detained immigrant filed a habeas corpus petition, the government was automatically blocked from deporting that person or changing their legal status until 4:00 p.m. on the second business day after filing.⁴ The order invoked the All Writs Act and was meant to give judges time to review cases amid a surge of after-hours, weekend, and holiday petitions.⁵

The order followed the deportation of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a Maryland resident sent to El Salvador’s CECOT prison despite a prior administrative ruling that he faced a credible fear of torture there. A government lawyer later admitted in court that the deportation was a mistake, and the Supreme Court ordered the administration to facilitate his return.⁶ The Maryland court was also concerned that the administration was removing people before judges could review their cases, placing deportees beyond the reach of the courts.⁵ Russell amended the order on May 29, 2025, to clarify that it applied only to immigrants detained within the District of Maryland.⁷

Who Was Sued and What the DOJ Argued

On June 24, 2025, the Justice Department filed its complaint in Baltimore in the names of the United States and the Department of Homeland Security. The defendants were all 15 federal district judges in Maryland, the court clerk, and the court itself.⁸

The DOJ called the standing order an “unlawful use of equitable powers to restrain the Executive” and an automatic injunction issued outside any individual case.⁹ The government argued the order intruded on “core Executive Branch powers” because it took effect regardless of a petition’s merit or whether the court even had jurisdiction.¹⁰ Attorney General Pamela Bondi called the judicial action “judicial overreach” that “undermines the democratic process.”¹¹

Because every Maryland judge was a defendant, the administration asked them to recuse and requested that an outside judge hear the case.⁸ The chief judge of the Fourth Circuit assigned U.S. District Judge Thomas T. Cullen of the Western District of Virginia, a Trump appointee based in Roanoke.¹²

The Maryland judges, represented by former Solicitor General Paul Clement, argued the suit was barred by judicial immunity and sovereign immunity. Clement told the court that “the executive branch seeks to bring suit in the name of the United States against a co-equal branch of government. There really is no precursor for this suit.”¹³ The proper route, the judges said, was a direct appeal of individual habeas rulings or a petition to the Judicial Council of the Fourth Circuit, which has statutory authority to rescind or modify local court rules.¹

The DOJ relied on Pulliam v. Allen, a 1984 Supreme Court decision holding that judges are not immune from civil injunctions, and argued that immunity does not reach standing orders or local rules. The Maryland judges answered that Pulliam applied only to state judges, and warned that letting the suit proceed could lead to the executive branch deposing federal judges.¹⁴

Outside support ran heavily against the DOJ. The Maryland State Bar Association, 39 law firms and advocacy groups, and 183 individual lawyers filed one brief; 11 retired federal judges appointed by presidents of both parties filed another, calling the standing order a “commonplace docket-management technique.”¹⁵ Retired Fourth Circuit Judge J. Michael Luttig joined a brief calling the suit “frivolous.”¹⁶ One conservative group, America’s Future, filed in support of the DOJ.

Why Judge Cullen Threw the Case Out

At the August 13, 2025 hearing in Baltimore, Cullen signaled his view immediately. “I don’t have a very good poker face,” he told the DOJ attorney. “And you probably picked up on the fact that I have some skepticism.”¹⁷ He said the suit was “taking it up about six notches” over the administration’s existing fights with the judiciary, and asked where its logic would end: if the government could sue an entire district bench, what would stop it from suing appellate courts or the Supreme Court?¹² The DOJ attorney, Elizabeth Hedges, conceded the government had never before sued all federal judges in a single district but insisted the suit was meant to “settle irreconcilable differences” and was “not an assault on the separation of powers.”¹⁸

Thirteen days later, Cullen issued a 39-page opinion dismissing the case. Federal judges enjoy “broad immunity for judicial acts,” he wrote, and when co-equal branches are at odds there is “no right — express or implied — to litigate that grievance in this manner.”¹ Some of the DOJ’s underlying arguments about the standing order’s legality might have had “traction” in the right forum, he acknowledged, but the administration had “simpler — and clearly more legal — ways to contest the standing order,” namely a direct appeal to the Fourth Circuit or a petition to its Judicial Council.¹⁹

Cullen also used the opinion to address the political backdrop. He called “this concerted effort by the executive to smear and impugn individual judges who rule against it” both “unprecedented and unfortunate,” and cataloged the administration’s descriptions of federal judges as “‘left-wing,’ ‘liberal,’ ‘activists,’ ‘radical,’ ‘politically minded,’ ‘rogue,’ ‘unhinged,’ ‘outrageous, overzealous, [and] unconstitutional, [c]rooked,’ and worse.”²⁰ A contrary ruling, he wrote, would “run counter to overwhelming precedent, depart from longstanding constitutional tradition, and offend the rule of law.”²¹

The Appeal and the DOJ’s Failed Attempt to Erase the Ruling

The DOJ announced an appeal to the Fourth Circuit within hours of the dismissal.²² It was docketed as Case No. 25-02004.

In January 2026 the DOJ changed tack. It asked the Fourth Circuit to dismiss its own appeal as moot, arguing that a December 2025 amended standing order had superseded the one it originally challenged, and it asked the court to vacate Cullen’s dismissal opinion as being in the “public interest.”²³ Vacatur would have wiped the ruling, including its language on immunity and separation of powers, from the legal record.

On February 10, 2026, the Fourth Circuit refused. The court held the case was “not moot” and reinstated the briefing schedule, with the administration’s opening brief due in late March 2026.² The appeal remains pending.

The Standing Order Now in Force

On December 1, 2025, Chief Judge Russell issued a Second Amended Standing Order. It keeps the core two-business-day pause on deportations after a habeas filing but adds procedural requirements, including a Rule 11 certification from the petitioner attesting to detention in Maryland, the need for emergency relief, and the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction.²⁴ That order is the one the DOJ pointed to in arguing its appeal was moot, and the one the Fourth Circuit declined to accept as mooting the case.

The Wider Fight

The Maryland lawsuit was one front in a broader confrontation between the administration and the federal courts over immigration enforcement. The DOJ argued that courts had issued more nationwide injunctions in the administration’s first 100 days than between 1900 and 2000.¹¹ Cody Wofsy of the ACLU’s Immigrants’ Rights Project said automatic stays on deportations during habeas review are “commonplace” and exist in the First, Second, Third, Fourth, and Ninth Circuits, with the Fourth Circuit itself maintaining a two-week stay policy. In Washington, D.C., Chief U.S. District Judge James Boasberg found “probable cause” that the administration had flouted his orders in Alien Enemies Act deportation cases.²⁵

1
Maryland Matters. Judge Throws Out Potentially Calamitous Trump Lawsuit Against Maryland Judges
2
The Daily Record. Fourth Circuit Trump Lawsuit Maryland Judges Not Moot
3
New Hampshire Bar Association. Trump DOJ Sues Federal Judges in Maryland
4
U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland. Standing Order 2025-01
5
The Daily Record. Maryland Habeas Corpus Deportation Freeze
6
Courthouse News Service. Supreme Court Orders Trump to Help Free Maryland Father From El Salvador Prison
7
The Daily Record. Maryland Deportation Order Amended
8
NPR. Justice Department Maryland Judges Deportation
9
ABC News. Justice Department Sues Entire Maryland Federal Judiciary
10
PBS NewsHour. Trump Administration Sues Maryland Federal Judges Over Order Blocking Immediate Removal of Immigrants
11
U.S. Department of Justice. Justice Department Files Complaint Against District Court of Maryland
12
Al Jazeera. US Judge Rejects Trumps Lawsuit Against Maryland Federal Court System
13
ABC7 News. Court Throws Out Lawsuit Against Maryland Federal Judges
14
Courthouse News Service. Feds Contest Maryland Judges Immunity in Immigration Case
15
The Daily Record. Trump Lawsuit Maryland Judges Deportation Order
16
Society for the Rule of Law Institute. LDAD Maryland Brief
17
The New York Times. Trump Maryland Judges Lawsuit
18
The Washington Post. Lawsuit DOJ Judges Migrants Deportation
19
The New York Times. Trump Suit Maryland Judges
20
The New York Times. Trump Suit Maryland Judges
21
NPR. DOJ Federal District Judges Maryland
22
The Washington Post. Judge Dismisses Unprecedented DOJ Lawsuit Against Maryland Federal Court
23
Bloomberg Law. Trump DOJ Looks to Drop Lawsuit Against Maryland Federal Judges
24
U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland. Second Amended Standing Order 2025-01
25
Courthouse News Service. Legal Experts View Trump Lawsuit Against Maryland Judges as Effort to Skirt Legal Review