1:25The Department of Justice seal during a news conference at the DOJ office in Washington, May 16, 2023. Jose Luis Magana/AP, FILE
A jurist elevated to the bench by former President Trump has tossed the Justice Department’s complaint against the entire Maryland court system over a bail-type directive that blocks the federal government from expelling unauthorized immigrants for a minimum of one day once they contest their confinement.
U.S. District Judge Thomas Cullen labeled the Trump administration’s salvos at district judges nationwide a “slander” that is “unmatched and lamentable.”
"Indeed, during recent months, key Executive branch officials (and their press aides) have branded federal district judges throughout the nation as 'left-wing,' 'liberal,' 'activist,' 'radical,' 'politically motivated,' 'rogue,' 'unhinged,' 'outrageous, overzealous, [and] unconstitutional,' '[c]rooked,' and still worse," Cullen noted in a footnote. "While a measure of friction among the coordinate branches is inherent in our constitutional structure, this orchestrated effort by the Executive to discredit and disparage individual jurists who rule against it is both unmatched and lamentable."
In a brief order, he disposed of the matter, ruling that the suit embodies a "non-justiciable clash between two co-equal branches of government." He further stated that the Maryland judges enjoy "absolute immunity" because the claim arises from an inherently judicial act.
"A straightforward interpretation of the authorities marshaled by Defendants inevitably compels dismissal. To rule otherwise would defy overwhelming precedent, abandon venerable constitutional norms, and subvert the rule of law," Cullen penned.
Cullen emphasized that the Executive must employ an appropriate avenue for voicing its grievances to the Maryland-bench judges, adding that suing the entire Maryland judiciary is not the correct avenue.
"However the Executive seeks to frame it, litigation by the executive branch against the judiciary for the exercise of its inherent powers is hardly routine. The Executive’s complaint is dismissed, and its request for a preliminary injunction is denied as moot. However meritorious its objections to rulings by the U.S. District Court for Maryland, the Executive must pursue the proper channel for raising those concerns," he concluded.
The Department of Justice seal during a news conference at the DOJ office in Washington, May 16, 2023. Jose Luis Magana/AP, FILE
In late June, the Department of Justice took the uncommon step of suing the whole Maryland federal bench over the directive that pauses a noncitizen’s removal for at least one day once a habeas petition is lodged.
"This action represents still another deplorable instance of the unlawful invocation of equitable authority to hamstring the Executive," the complaint stated. "Specifically, the Defendants have imposed an ostensibly automatic restraining order on the federal government, issued outside any individual case or actual controversy … by promulgating a standing—now twice-amended—order that compels the court clerk to enter an automatic stay on deporting or altering the legal status of any alien detained in Maryland who files a habeas petition."
The directive was adopted in May while tribunals nationwide tried to handle a rush of emergency filings contesting the Trump administration’s intensified removal operations.
The Maryland federal courthouse now hosts what is perhaps the most widely watched of those matters—lawsuits concerning Kilmar Abrego Garcia.
Abrego Garcia, who was mistakenly expelled in March and later returned on fresh criminal counts, was taken back into immigration custody during a scheduled check-in at the Baltimore ICE office on Monday before being transferred to a Virginia detention facility, where he once again confronts removal proceedings.
ABC News’ Laura Romero and Ely Brown contributed to this report.
Sourse: abcnews.go.com
