In a legal saga that has captured national attention, a federal judge this week dismissed a highly unusual lawsuit brought by the Justice Department against all 15 federal district judges in Maryland. The case, which stemmed from a dispute over immigration enforcement and the separation of powers, has highlighted the growing tensions between the executive and judicial branches of the U.S. government—and the lengths to which those conflicts can escalate.
It all began in June 2025, when the Justice Department took the extraordinary step of suing the entire bench of Maryland’s U.S. District Court. The department alleged that a standing order issued by Chief Judge George Russell was hampering the government’s ability to carry out immigration actions. Specifically, the order required federal immigration officials to wait two business days before deporting any detainee who had filed a habeas petition, giving the court time to review the individual’s case. According to The Center Square, the Justice Department argued that this amounted to judicial overreach, interfering with the executive branch’s authority to enforce immigration law and, by extension, protect public safety and national security.
The government’s lawsuit was remarkable not only for its scope—targeting every sitting federal judge in Maryland—but also for its tone. The Justice Department’s complaint described the court’s actions as “a particularly egregious example of judicial overreach interfering with Executive Branch prerogatives—and thus undermining the democratic process.” The department contended that the court’s standing orders created “automatic injunction[s] against the federal government,” which it deemed unlawful.
But the case did not proceed as the Justice Department had hoped. On Tuesday, August 26, 2025, U.S. District Judge Thomas Cullen of Virginia, himself a Trump appointee from 2020, issued a 39-page opinion dismissing the lawsuit. Judge Cullen’s decision was pointed and, at times, scathing in its assessment of the administration’s approach.
“If these arguments were made in the proper forum, they might well get some traction,” Cullen wrote, referencing the Justice Department’s complaints about the Maryland court’s order. He noted that the administration could have challenged the order through established legal channels, such as petitioning the Judicial Council of the Fourth Circuit—which oversees the administration of federal courts in the region—or by appealing the order to the Fourth Circuit as applied to a specific case. “Instead, it chose a different, and more confrontational, path,” Cullen observed, referring to the decision to sue the court’s judges and clerk directly.
Judge Cullen ultimately agreed with the defendants’ argument that the lawsuit was little more than a political dispute between co-equal branches of government. He emphasized that, under the doctrine of judicial immunity, judges are protected from being sued for actions taken in their judicial capacity unless they act outside their jurisdiction. Allowing the case to proceed, he warned, would “run counter to overwhelming precedent, depart from longstanding constitutional tradition, and offend the rule of law.”
In a particularly striking passage, Cullen addressed the broader context of the administration’s actions. He criticized the Justice Department—and by extension, the Trump administration—for its public attacks on the judiciary. “Indeed, over the past several months, principal officers of the Executive (and their spokespersons) have described federal district judges across the country as ‘left-wing,’ ‘liberal,’ ‘activists,’ ‘radical,’ ‘politically minded,’ ‘rogue,’ ‘unhinged,’ ‘outrageous, overzealous and unconstitutional,’ ‘crooked,’ and worse,” Cullen wrote. “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’s rebuke did not go unnoticed. According to New York Magazine, he further remarked, “In their wisdom, the Constitution’s framers joined three coordinate branches to establish a single sovereign. That structure may occasionally engender clashes between two branches and encroachment by one branch on another’s authority. But mediating those disputes must occur in a manner that respects the Judiciary’s constitutional role.”
The Maryland court’s original order, which sparked the lawsuit, was designed to ensure due process for immigrants facing deportation. By mandating a brief delay—just two business days—the court sought to guarantee that detainees who filed habeas petitions had their cases reviewed before being moved or deported. The Justice Department, however, maintained that such delays hampered its ability to enforce immigration laws swiftly and effectively, potentially undermining public safety and national security. As reported by The Center Square, the Department of Homeland Security argued that the standing orders “engendered automatic injunction[s] against the federal government.”
This is not the first time a Trump-appointed judge has ruled against the administration’s own policies. Earlier this year, in May 2025, U.S. District Judge Fernando Rodriguez Jr. of Texas found that the government’s use of the Alien Enemies Act to deport Venezuelan migrants “exceeds the scope of the statute and, as a result, is unlawful.” Similarly, the United States Court of International Trade, including Trump appointee Timothy Reif, previously ruled against the administration’s tariffs policy. These cases underscore the independence of the federal judiciary—even those judges installed by the current administration are willing to rule against it when they believe the law requires it.
After Judge Cullen’s dismissal, the Justice Department wasted little time in responding. Late on August 26, 2025, the administration filed an appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, signaling its intention to continue the fight. Whether the higher court will take a different view remains to be seen, but legal experts suggest that the principles of judicial immunity and the separation of powers are likely to weigh heavily in any future proceedings.
Observers have pointed out that the episode is emblematic of a broader pattern in recent years: escalating clashes between the executive branch and the judiciary, particularly over issues like immigration, executive authority, and the limits of judicial review. While some in the administration argue that the courts are overstepping their bounds and interfering with policies that the public voted for, others—both inside and outside the legal community—warn that such confrontations threaten the delicate balance of powers at the heart of the American constitutional system.
Judge Cullen’s opinion, with its careful attention to both legal precedent and institutional respect, serves as a reminder of the judiciary’s vital role. The court’s insistence on process, tradition, and the rule of law may frustrate those seeking quick action, but as history has shown, these safeguards are essential to the functioning of American democracy.
As the Justice Department’s appeal moves forward, the nation will be watching closely. The outcome could have lasting implications for the relationship between the branches of government—and for the future of immigration policy in the United States.
