On August 26, 2025, a legal showdown between the executive and judicial branches reached a dramatic conclusion as U.S. District Judge Thomas Cullen, who typically presides in Virginia, dismissed a lawsuit brought by the Department of Justice against all 15 federal district judges in Maryland. The case, which many legal observers have described as extraordinary, centered on a standing order that temporarily halts the deportation of undocumented immigrants who challenge their detention in federal court.
The controversy began in May 2025, when Chief Judge George Russell of the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland issued a standing order. This order, later amended, required the court clerk to automatically enter a two-business-day injunction against deporting or altering the legal status of any immigrant detained in Maryland who files a habeas petition. The move was prompted by a surge of emergency lawsuits from migrants contesting the Trump administration’s aggressive deportation tactics. According to ABC News, the standing order was intended to give courts enough time to fairly consider these challenges, especially as many were filed outside normal hours, leading to rushed and chaotic hearings.
The Justice Department, under the Trump administration, responded with the unusual step of suing the entire Maryland federal judiciary, arguing that the order unlawfully restrained the executive branch’s authority. Their complaint, filed in late June, called the order “an avowedly automatic injunction against the federal government, issued outside the context of any particular case or controversy.” The DOJ insisted that “judges sometimes break the law,” and described the Maryland court’s action as “an extraordinary form of judicial interference in Executive prerogatives,” as reported by Beritaja.
But Judge Cullen was unmoved by these arguments. In his ruling, he emphasized that the lawsuit amounted to a nonjusticiable dispute—one that courts are not empowered to resolve—between two co-equal branches of government. “Any fair reading of the legal authorities cited by Defendants leads to the ineluctable conclusion that this court has no alternative but to dismiss,” Cullen wrote. “To hold otherwise would run counter to overwhelming precedent, depart from longstanding constitutional tradition, and offend the rule of law.”
Judge Cullen also made clear that judges are “absolutely immune” from lawsuits stemming from their judicial acts. He noted that, in normal circumstances, the Justice Department would appeal specific decisions or petition the judicial council to modify court rules if it disagreed with them. Instead, he wrote, “these are not normal times—at least regarding the interplay between the Executive and this coordinate branch of government. It’s no surprise that the Executive chose a different, and more confrontational, path entirely.”
His opinion was especially critical of the administration’s rhetoric. In a footnote, Cullen cited recent attacks by executive branch officials on federal judges, who had been labeled “left-wing,” “liberal,” “activists,” “radical,” “politically minded,” “rogue,” “unhinged,” and worse. “Although some tension between the coordinate branches of government is a hallmark of our constitutional system, this concerted effort by the Executive to smear and impugn individual judges who rule against it is both unprecedented and unfortunate,” Cullen wrote, as highlighted by Nexstar Media and The Hill.
The Maryland judiciary did not stand alone. Supreme Court advocate Paul Clement, a former solicitor general, represented the judges. They also received support from the Maryland State Bar Association, numerous law firms, and 11 retired federal judges. Several former jurists affiliated with the nonprofit Keep Our Republic’s Article III Project spoke out in favor of the judicial defendants. Philip Pro, a retired federal judge from Nevada, told Beritaja, “A two-business-day hold is such a reasonable and short period that I don’t think it could frustrate any executive powers. That’s a situation that’s made by the executive with their timing.”
At the heart of the legal dispute was the case of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a Salvadoran man living in Maryland. He was deported in March 2025 despite a judicial order barring his removal—a mistake the Justice Department later described as an “administrative error.” After spending weeks in a harsh Salvadoran prison, Garcia was returned to the U.S. but now faces new criminal charges and is again in immigration detention. His case has become emblematic of the challenges courts face in balancing due process with the executive branch’s push for swift deportations.
Judge Cullen’s ruling did not address the substantive question of whether Chief Judge Russell had the authority to issue the standing order. Instead, the focus remained on the procedural and constitutional barriers to the executive branch suing the judiciary. “Much as the Executive fights the characterization, a lawsuit by the executive branch of government against the judicial branch for the exercise of judicial power is not ordinary,” Cullen wrote. “Whatever the merits of its grievance with the judges of the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, the Executive must find a proper way to raise those concerns.”
Legal experts say the administration still has options if it wishes to challenge the Maryland court’s order. Cullen himself pointed out that if the executive branch “truly believes that Defendants’ standing orders violate the law, it should avail itself of the tried-and-true recourse available to all federal litigants: It should appeal.”
The Justice Department has signaled its intent to appeal the dismissal. The dispute marks yet another flashpoint in the ongoing tension between the Trump administration and the federal judiciary, which has seen repeated clashes over immigration policy and the limits of executive power. As ABC News and NPR note, this case stands out for the sheer scale of the lawsuit—targeting every federal judge in a state—and the sharp criticism exchanged between branches of government.
For now, the Maryland standing order remains in effect, providing a brief window for detained immigrants to challenge their deportation before removal proceedings can continue. Whether this policy will survive further legal scrutiny remains to be seen, but Judge Cullen’s decision has reinforced the principle that disputes between the executive and judicial branches are not easily resolved through head-on litigation.
In the end, the ruling leaves both the legal and political landscape unsettled, with the fate of many migrants—and the boundaries of governmental power—still hanging in the balance.
