The Trump administration is asking a federal appeals court to reinstate an extraordinary lawsuit targeting every federal judge in Maryland, arguing that the judiciary overstepped by imposing restrictions on the government’s efforts to deport detained immigrants.
During arguments before a three-judge panel of the 4th US Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Virginia, the Justice Department maintained that it had the authority to bring the case and protect the federal government’s interests. The administration is challenging an earlier decision that dismissed its lawsuit.
Justice Department attorney Sarah Welch argued that a standing order issued by Maryland’s federal court effectively prevented the government from carrying out certain immigration enforcement actions.
The dispute began in June 2025, when the US District Court for the District of Maryland introduced an order automatically delaying the deportation of migrants for two business days if they filed new lawsuits challenging the legality of their detention.
The measure was introduced amid a growing number of habeas corpus petitions filed by detainees who feared they could be removed from the country before their legal challenges were considered. Such petitions allow individuals to contest the lawfulness of their detention.
Rather than contesting the restrictions through individual immigration cases, the Justice Department took the unusual step of suing the entire federal judiciary in Maryland. It argued that the standing order unlawfully interfered with the executive branch’s responsibility for enforcing immigration laws.
The case was subsequently transferred to US District Judge Thomas Cullen in Virginia, a Trump appointee, because all federal judges in Maryland had been named as defendants.
Cullen dismissed the lawsuit, describing it as part of what he viewed as an unprecedented effort to discredit judges whose decisions had obstructed the administration’s policies. He also characterized the litigation as an unfortunate development in the relationship between the executive and judicial branches.
At Friday’s appellate hearing, the judges focused on whether the administration could legally bring such a sweeping case against an entire judicial district.
They also questioned the government’s reliance on the US Supreme Court’s 1895 ruling in In re Debs. The Justice Department has invoked that precedent to argue that the federal government can seek court orders to protect its sovereign interests.
US Circuit Judge Stephanie Thacker, appointed by former Democratic President Barack Obama, questioned the potential consequences of accepting the administration’s argument.
She pointed out that allowing the executive branch to sue an entire federal court could create a precedent with no clear boundaries, particularly when disagreements arise between the two branches of government.
Representing the Maryland judges, prominent appellate attorney Paul Clement urged the appeals court to uphold the dismissal. He argued that permitting the lawsuit to proceed would threaten the constitutional separation of powers.
Clement maintained that the administration’s decision to name an entire judicial district as a defendant was fundamentally flawed and could open the door to similar litigation in the future.
However, the panel was not entirely aligned in its initial assessment. US Circuit Judge Marvin Quattlebaum, the only Republican-appointed judge on the panel, cautioned against rejecting the government’s position simply because the lawsuit was unprecedented.
Even so, Quattlebaum questioned whether the Justice Department’s interpretation of the In re Debs ruling was supported by historical practice. He observed that many earlier cases relying on the precedent involved disputes with private individuals or businesses, often connected to property rights.
That distinction, he suggested, could create difficulties for the administration’s attempt to apply the same legal principle against members of the federal judiciary.
The appeals court must now consider whether the Justice Department can proceed with a lawsuit that places the executive branch directly against an entire federal judicial district.
The outcome could have implications beyond immigration enforcement, particularly for how disputes between the executive and judicial branches are handled when court orders restrict government policies.
