A federal judge appointed by President Donald Trump dismissed the Justice Department’s lawsuit against every sitting judge on the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, closing an unusual bid to overturn that court’s two-day pause on deportations for people who file habeas petitions. U.S. District Judge Thomas Cullen, who normally sits in the Western District of Virginia, issued the ruling on August 26, 2025, after being assigned because all 15 Maryland judges were named as defendants. Cullen granted the judges’ motion to toss the case and kept the Maryland court’s order in place.

Why the case was thrown out

Cullen said the Justice Department lacked standing to sue a coequal branch over how it manages its docket and that, in any event, the Maryland judges are protected by judicial immunity. Allowing the case to proceed, he wrote, “would run counter to overwhelming precedent, depart from longstanding constitutional tradition, and offend the rule of law.” He added that the Constitution “joined three coordinate branches to establish a single sovereign” and that disputes over perceived encroachment must be handled in ways that respect the judiciary’s role—namely, through the ordinary appellate process, not through a separate lawsuit against an entire bench. He described the administration’s approach as “novel and potentially calamitous.”

What the Maryland order does

The contested standing order, signed in May by Chief U.S. District Judge George L. Russell III, directs clerks to enter an administrative pause that blocks removal or status changes until 4 p.m. on the second business day after a detainee files a habeas petition. Russell said the step was necessary amid a spike of after-hours filings that left the court scrambling to determine petitioners’ whereabouts and to preserve its jurisdiction long enough for a judge to hear arguments from both sides. The Justice Department argued that the order functions as an injunction in all cases without the findings normally required and interferes with the executive’s enforcement of immigration law.

How the Justice Department framed its claims

Filed in June, the lawsuit said the Maryland court’s automatic pauses diminished the president’s authority and, by delaying removals, “diminish[ed] the votes of the citizens who elected the head of the Executive Branch.” Government lawyers argued that frustration with weekend filings or scheduling problems cannot justify blanket relief across all cases. In an August 13 hearing, Cullen questioned why the administration had sued all judges rather than appealing in an individual habeas matter, noting that the tried-and-true path exists in the Fourth Circuit. In Tuesday’s opinion, he repeated that point and concluded he had no authority to enjoin other federal judges.

Separation of powers and judicial immunity

Cullen’s opinion emphasized two threshold barriers. First, he said the executive could not show a cognizable injury that a court could redress by ordering federal judges to change their internal case-management practices. Second, he held that the Maryland judges were immune from suit for actions taken in their judicial capacity, and that the district court itself—an arm of the sovereign United States—cannot be sued absent congressional waiver. He described the case as a dispute “between equals” that lacked a historical basis and warned that green-lighting it would invite “a constitutional free-for-all.”

Context from recent immigration litigation

The Maryland district has handled multiple high-profile disputes involving removals. Earlier this year, Judge Paula Xinis ordered the administration to facilitate the return of Kilmar Abrego Garcia after finding he had been deported in violation of an existing protection order; in subsequent proceedings, she temporarily barred his removal to a third country and set an evidentiary hearing. The Justice Department cited such cases as examples of what it called judicial overreach; the Maryland bench—represented by former U.S. Solicitor General Paul Clement—argued that the government was attempting to curtail habeas review while pursuing a broader mass-deportation agenda.

Tone of the opinion and the broader clash

While noting that some tension between branches is inherent, Cullen criticized recent executive-branch rhetoric toward judges who rule against it. He pointed to statements labeling jurists “rogue,” “unhinged,” “radical,” or “crooked,” and called that “concerted effort” unprecedented and unfortunate. He also observed that the government had filed misconduct complaints and pursued confrontational tactics in parallel with litigation, a backdrop he cited in describing this suit as an escalation that ensnared an entire court “in novel and potentially calamitous litigation.”

Immediate fallout and next steps

The administration filed a notice of appeal to the Fourth Circuit after the ruling. The White House offered no immediate comment, while the opinion leaves the two-day administrative pause intact unless altered by the Fourth Circuit or the Maryland court itself. Cullen underscored that the government still has conventional avenues to challenge the standing order: it can raise its arguments within a specific habeas case and ask for relief from the court of appeals, rather than suing another federal court and its judges as defendants.

How unusual this case was—and what it signals

Across outlets covering the decision, the central point was the suit’s rarity: an executive-branch plaintiff naming an entire federal bench, plus the court, over a case-management order. Cullen’s ruling characterizes that approach as inconsistent with the architecture of the Constitution and longstanding practice. The decision does not pass on the ultimate validity of Russell’s standing order; instead, it blocks this particular route and points the administration back to the appellate track available to every litigant. The message is straightforward: when the executive disagrees with a federal court’s handling of cases, the remedy is appeal, not a new lawsuit against the judiciary.

Bottom line

Judge Thomas Cullen’s decision ends the Justice Department’s attempt to invalidate Maryland’s two-day removal pause by suing all of the court’s judges. On jurisdictional and immunity grounds, he dismissed the case, warned against turning separation-of-powers disputes into direct litigation between branches, and urged the government to use standard appellate channels. The order that sparked the fight—briefly holding deportations for habeas petitioners—remains in effect while the appeal proceeds.