Federal judges sued by Trump administration ask appeals court to reject 'misguided' lawsuit

By Nate Raymond

April 30 (Reuters) - Federal judges in Maryland are urging an appeals court to uphold the dismissal of a lawsuit President Donald Trump's administration filed against them challenging a court order that impeded Trump's efforts to rapidly deport people detained during his immigration crackdown.

The 14 judges, represented by prominent appellate advocate Paul Clement, told the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in a Wednesday filing that the U.S. Department of Justice's case was "misguided" and an "unprecedented overreach" that threatened further tensions between the administration and the judiciary.

"And if this first-of-its-kind lawsuit were to succeed, it would not be the last — and the next one could be against this Court (or the Supreme Court) and cause greater disruption still," the judges warned.

The Justice Department did not respond to a request for comment.

The Justice Department under now-former Attorney General Pam Bondi filed the case in June after the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland in May adopted a standing order that automatically blocks for two business days the deportation of migrants in the state who file new lawsuits challenging their detention.

The order, signed by Chief U.S. District Judge George Russell, cited a "recent influx of habeas petitions concerning alien detainees purportedly subject to improper and imminent removal from the United States." A habeas petition is a legal action challenging the legality of a person's detention.

Rather than challenge that order in an individual immigration case or seek to have it set aside through legislation or judicial policymaking, the Justice Department sued every judge on the federal bench in Maryland, arguing the order was unlawful and trampled on its authority over immigration matters.

Because every Maryland judge was sued, the case was assigned to U.S. District Judge Thomas Cullen, a Trump appointee in the Western District of Virginia.

He dismissed the case in August, holding that the administration could not sue the judges and decrying its "unprecedented and unfortunate" broader campaign to "smear and impugn" judges who rule against Trump's policies.

Clement, in Wednesday's brief, urged the Richmond, Virginia-based appeals court to uphold that ruling, saying if the case was allowed to proceed, it would escalate tensions between the judicial and executive branches and allow judges to be deposed and questioned about their motivations.

The Justice Department on appeal has argued that "courts and judges are not above the law, and the government properly sought judicial relief as the remedy for an unlawful rule." But it has also sought, so far unsuccessfully, to have its appeal dismissed, saying it is moot after the Maryland judges revised the standing order to alter its conditions.

Clement urged the 4th Circuit to press forward and deem the case not moot, saying the administration has threatened to pursue the same arguments in new litigation potentially.

"This unprecedented effort deserves a precedential rebuke," he wrote.

The case is United States v. Russell, 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 25-2004.

For the United States: Elizabeth Hedges and Sarah Welch of the U.S. Department of Justice

For the Maryland judges: Paul Clement of Clement & Murphy

Read more:

Trump-appointed judge rebukes DOJ for 'calamitous' lawsuit against Maryland judges

Trump-appointed judge expresses 'skepticism' about DOJ case against Maryland judges over immigration order

Trump administration sues Maryland federal judges over order blocking deportations

Wisconsin judge arrested in immigration case retains top conservative lawyer