Judge is skeptical of Justice Department’s lawsuit against 15 federal judges as Trump tries to limit power of judiciary
On August 13, 2025, U.S. District Judge Thomas Cullen—a Trump appointee from Virginia—expressed deep skepticism toward an extraordinary lawsuit filed by the Department of Justice (DOJ) against all 15 federal judges of Maryland. The DOJ is challenging an internal standing order issued by the District of Maryland that imposes a two-business-day stay on deportations for migrants who file habeas corpus petitions, aiming to ensure due process and legal representation before removal proceedings proceed.
Background & Legal Posture
Rather than pursuing the conventional route—appealing the standing order through the Fourth Circuit or Supreme Court—the DOJ took the highly unusual step of suing the judges themselves, alleging judicial overreach and interference with immigration enforcement. The complaint frames the pause as an egregious encroachment on the executive branch’s authority, disrupting its deportation agenda.
Judge Cullen’s Response
Judge Cullen voiced concerns that the DOJ’s approach disregards the separation of powers: “Why sue the judges instead of appealing the order?” he asked. He warned that allowing such a lawsuit could set a dangerous precedent, enabling the executive branch to target any level of the judiciary—even the Supreme Court—for rulings it disagrees with. Cullen’s discomfort underscores the potential threat this lawsuit poses to judicial independence.
Cullen has deferred a final ruling on whether to enjoin the Maryland judges, pledging to issue a decision by Labor Day.
Broader Implications
Legal experts and observers have raised alarms that this action goes far beyond legal strategy—it’s a political gambit. By targeting the entire federal bench, the administration amplifies partisan framing of the judiciary as enemies of its agenda, rather than as an independent interpreter of law. The stance threatens to erode long-held norms that preserve the delicate balance among the branches of government.
Moreover, the case highlights the plight of migrants. The Maryland court’s two-day stay—which may seem procedural—could be a lifeline for migrants facing immediate removal, particularly affecting those filing petitions on weekends or holidays when courts may be inaccessible.
Why It Matters
-
** Threat to Separation of Powers**
By suing a branch of the judiciary directly, the DOJ tests constitutional boundaries—raising fears of executive encroachment and a slippery slope toward undermining judicial autonomy. -
** Unprecedented Legal Move**
This lawsuit departs sharply from legal norms. Instead of appealing a judicial order, the administration is directly targeting the judges who issued it—an approach rarely, if ever, attempted. -
** Operational Consequences for Immigration Enforcement**
The challenged two-day stay saves critical time for review and legal representation, especially valuable for detainees; potentially, its removal could accelerate deportations without meaningful judicial oversight. -
** Potential Chilling Effect**
The case may intimidate judges nationwide, signaling retribution risks for rulings that thwart administration policies—jeopardizing future impartiality.** Political Dimension Amid Ongoing Judicial Clashes**
This is part of a broader trend of escalating conflict between the administration and the courts, raising stakes in how the branches interact during Trump’s second term.
Key Legal Outcomes:
-
No Immediate Injunction – Judge Thomas Cullen has not yet ruled on whether to halt Maryland’s two-business-day deportation stay; decision expected by Labor Day 2025.
-
Legal Standing Debate – Cullen questioned whether the DOJ is using the right legal avenue, emphasizing that an appeal—not suing judges—would be the traditional remedy.
-
Separation of Powers Concerns – Cullen signaled that approving the DOJ’s suit could open the door for the executive branch to target judges nationwide for rulings it dislikes.
-
Procedural Status – The case remains active, with both sides ordered to submit further legal arguments before the upcoming decision deadline.
📰 Outlet & Publication Date:
-
Reuters – Published August 13, 2025
-
Washington Post – Published August 13, 2025
-
Associated Press (AP) – Published August 13, 2025
