Trump Administration Sues Maryland Court Over Immigration Stays, Sparks Constitution Debate

The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) has filed an appellate brief urging the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals to dismiss its unprecedented lawsuit against the entire U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland. The DOJ accuses the court of "judicial overreach" after it issued a standing order in May 2025 granting automatic stays in habeas corpus cases, halting deportations amid an influx of immigration petitions.

The case began when Chief Judge George L. Russell III, a Barack Obama appointee, implemented the stay to address scheduling conflicts caused by increased immigration enforcement. The DOJ responded in June 2025 by suing not only the court but also each of its 15 judges and the clerk of court, arguing the move was an unconstitutional overstep.

In late August 2025, U.S. District Judge Thomas T. Cullen, a Donald Trump appointee, dismissed the DOJ's lawsuit, calling it "novel and potentially calamitous." The defendant judges have now filed their response brief with the 4th Circuit, defended by former U.S. Solicitor General Paul Clement. They argue that the standing order is a standard "docket-control mechanism" to ensure fair proceedings, particularly in habeas cases where petitioners face imminent deportation.

The brief emphasizes that the DOJ's lawsuit is an "extraordinary branch-on-branch" action that threatens the separation of powers. It highlights that the 4th Circuit itself has a similar standing order for appellate cases, staying deportations for 14 days upon filing. The judges argue that their approach is necessary to prevent executive overreach and ensure judicial independence.

The case has sparked broader debates about the balance between executive authority and judicial oversight in immigration matters. As the legal battle continues, both sides are framing the issue as a matter of constitutional principles and the proper limits of government power.