The judge said he didn’t have authority to block the court and that the defendants enjoyed immunity.
The Trump administration has lost its unusual lawsuit against a federal court in Maryland that set up a process of automatically blocking deportations for individuals who challenged their detention by the federal government.
U.S. District Judge Thomas Cullen said in an opinion on Aug. 26 that the federal judges in Maryland, each of whom had been sued by the administration, enjoyed judicial immunity from what he described as “potentially calamitous litigation.”
“As events over the past several months have revealed, these are not normal times—at least regarding the interplay between the executive and this coordinate branch of government,” Cullen wrote.
“It’s no surprise that the executive chose a different, and more confrontational, path entirely.”
His ruling marked a victory for the judicial branch, which has seen escalating tensions with the executive branch through a flood of litigation brought against President Donald Trump’s agenda.
The Maryland District Court, in particular, has been the site of high-profile battles over judicial authority—resulting in at least two major Supreme Court decisions in recent months.
Before halting a Maryland judge’s nationwide block on Trump’s birthright citizenship order, the Supreme Court affirmed Judge Paula Xinis’s order that the administration facilitate the return of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, who had been deported to El Salvador.
Just a day before Cullen’s ruling, Xinis halted the administration from deporting Abrego Garcia to Uganda.
Her order was part of a broader attempt by the court to secure more time for reviewing potential removals amid an influx of petitions for habeas relief.
In May, Chief Judge George Russell issued a standing order that automatically blocked the administration from altering petitioners’ legal status or removing them from the continental United States.
Citing scheduling difficulties, Russell described the order as a way to preserve the court’s jurisdiction over cases and ensure the petitioners could participate in court proceedings.
During a hearing on Aug. 13, the Justice Department alleged that Russell’s order amounted to a preliminary injunction that failed to consider certain factors judges are usually required to weigh when issuing such orders.
Its lawsuit went further in alleging that Russell’s order was diminishing “the votes of the citizens who elected the head of the executive branch.”
