(CN) - Since the start of his second term, President Donald Trump has found a new enemy to replace the so-called "Deep State" he frequently blamed for halting or slowing down his immigration agenda during his first stint in office: the federal judiciary.
The Justice Department sued all 15 judges of the District of Maryland, and the court itself, Tuesday night, opening an unprecedented new front against a coequal branch of government.
The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court of Maryland, stems from several rulings in the court halting or reversing the Trump administration's efforts to summarily deport immigrants to countries like El Salvador without due process.
Specifically, the feds argue that Chief District Judge George Russell III's May 21 amended standing order - a set of rules each judge sets for their courtrooms, and chief judges for their districts - temporarily freezing any active removal efforts tied to a habeas corpus petition was an unlawful overreach of judicial authority.
The so-called "automatic injunctions" are placed in each case for two business days, to allow a federal judge to be assigned and have a chance to consider the petition before the immigrant can be removed, as was the case for immigrants like Kilmar Abrego Garcia, who was deported under the Alien Enemies Act.
"Defendants' automatic injunction issues whether or not the alien needs or seeks emergency relief, whether or not the court has jurisdiction over the alien's claims, and no matter how frivolous the alien's claims may be," the Justice Department wrote. "And it does so in the immigration context, thus intruding on core executive branch powers."
Cody Wofsy, the deputy director of the Immigrants' Rights Project at the American Civil Liberties Union, said in an interview with Courthouse News Wednesday that the lawsuit was a "troubling" escalation over a common-sense and commonplace policy throughout federal courts.
He noted that several appellate circuits have similar rules that automatically freeze removal orders as habeas petitions or immigration petitions for review proceed, such as the First, Second, Third, Fourth and Ninth Circuits, with limited stays available in remaining circuits.
"If there was an administration that believed in the rule of law and what the U.S. Constitution and statutes require, it would not be so terrified of this kind of inquiry from courts," Wofsy said. "The fact that we're seeing this extraordinary lawsuit just shows how terrified the Trump administration is of having judges look at what they're doing, and that makes sense because so much of what they're doing is illegal."
The lawsuit comes as claims regarding the Trump administration's apparent willful defiance of court orders barring summary deportations have come to a head following a DOJ whistleblower complaint regarding principal associate deputy attorney general and Third Circuit nominee Emil Bove.
According to the complaint by former Justice Department attorney Erez Reuveni, Bove told DOJ colleagues that that top law enforcement agency might have to tell Chief U.S. District Judge James Boasberg of Washington "fuck you" to carry out deportations under the Alien Enemies Act in March.
Reuveni, who made national headlines for admitting before U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis in Maryland that Abrego Garcia's removal to El Salvador was an "administrative error," also described an emergency practice at the DOJ policy to mislead federal judges and ignore court orders to return wrongfully deported immigrants.
Certain legal scholars at the University of Michigan have named the practice "legalistic noncompliance," defining it as an "attempt to conceal what is actually widespread resistance to judicial oversight."
In Boasberg's case, he found probable cause that the Trump administration flouted his court orders to return two planes that had left during an emergency hearing on March 15, which could be grounds for contempt proceedings. That decision is pending on appeal before the D.C. Circuit.
In recognition of the fact that by naming every sitting judge on the District of Maryland, no judge there could hear the case, the Department of Homeland Security filed a motion to transfer. It requested the Fourth Circuit Clerk's Office to randomly assign the case to a federal judge from another district, or simply transfer the case to another district entirely.
That would increase the chances of a conservative-leaning judge to hear the case, as the remaining districts in the Fourth Circuit are in Virginia, South Carolina, North Carolina and West Virginia.
Attorney General Pam Bondi, in a statement announcing the lawsuit, noted that federal judges have issued more nationwide injunctions in the first 100 days of the Trump administration than those imposed between 1900 and 2000.
"President Trump's executive authority has been undermined since the first hours of his presidency by an endless barrage of injunctions designed to halt his agenda," Bondi said. "The American people elected President Trump to carry out his policy agenda: this pattern of judicial overreach undermines the democratic process and cannot be allowed to stand."
Source: Courthouse News Service
