In a Baltimore courtroom, a federal judge openly wondered why the U.S. Justice Department had chosen the nuclear option—suing every federal judge in Maryland—rather than simply appealing a ruling it didn’t like.
Judge Thomas Cullen, appointed during Donald Trump’s presidency and presiding from Virginia, didn’t hide his doubts. “I think you probably picked up on the fact that I have some skepticism,” he told a DOJ attorney.
At the heart of the clash is a standing order from May that pauses deportations for two business days when migrants in Maryland file new habeas petitions challenging their detention. The Trump administration, citing a surge in such filings, saw the order as a roadblock to its mass deportation plans. The DOJ labeled it an “egregious example of judicial overreach” and, instead of contesting it in a single case, filed suit against all 15 Maryland federal judges.
Cullen suggested this move was “taking it up about six notches,” pointing out that a straightforward appeal to the 4th Circuit, and possibly the Supreme Court, would have been faster than the two months already spent on litigation.
Because the DOJ usually represents judges in lawsuits, this peculiar role reversal forced the Maryland judges to hire prominent conservative lawyer Paul Clement. Clement called the case “no ordinary matter” and warned that it sets a dangerous precedent for executive-judiciary showdowns.
Cullen promised a ruling by Labor Day, though he made clear his decision would not be the last word.
The legal face-off, **United States v. Russell**, could mark one of the rare moments where the executive branch takes the judiciary head-on, not through appeals, but in a direct lawsuit against the bench itself.
