Government official expresses doubts about legal action taken by the Justice Department against multiple federal judges, with President Trump appearing to seek the reduction of the judiciary's authority.
In a move that has raised eyebrows across the nation, the Justice Department filed a lawsuit against all federal judges on the District Court of Maryland in late June. The lawsuit came in response to a rule that temporarily blocked the Trump administration from fast-moving deportations of immigrants.
The high court has acted swiftly on cases appealed to its emergency docket, according to court sources. However, the judges have hired conservative lawyer Paul Clement to defend them in the case. Clement, a well-known figure in constitutional law, argued that the case should be thrown out, citing "judicial immunity" and the lack of a valid claim for the administration.
The case, which has been centralised in Baltimore due to Maryland judges' recusal, has been compared by US District Judge Thomas Cullen, a Trump appointee, as "taking it up about six notches." Cullen has spent nearly two hours criticising the administration's lawsuit and questioning its potential implications for other executive branch litigation.
Eleven former federal judges, including some appointed by Republican presidents, have voiced their concerns. In a friend-of-the-court brief, they warned that if the Trump administration's approach is allowed, it could "run roughshod over any effort by the judiciary to preserve its jurisdiction." They fear that such an approach could limit federal judges' ability to review or block immigration policy implementations, affecting immigration enforcement nationwide.
The rule at the heart of the dispute was intended to allow courts to intervene before a detainee's removal, following a high-profile dispute in the Maryland federal court involving Kilmar Abrego-Garcia. Cullen, the judge overseeing the immigration case in Baltimore, has expressed concern about the Justice Department's decision to mount a wholesale challenge to the Maryland court instead of taking issue with court orders on a case-by-case basis.
The lawsuit represents a rare and potentially groundbreaking direct challenge to judicial power regarding immigration disputes. If successful, it could set a precedent restricting judicial oversight over executive immigration actions, impacting protections like DACA or birthright citizenship rulings seen in other federal courts. It also risks intensifying political and legal conflict among branches of government, raising concerns of judicial intimidation or executive overreach.
As the case proceeds, the nation watches with bated breath, as the outcome could have far-reaching implications for the balance of power between the executive and judicial branches and the future of immigration rights enforcement.
Read also:
- Massive 8.8 earthquake hits off the coast of Russia's Kamchatka Peninsula, prompting Japan to issue a tsunami alert.
- Court petitions to reverse established decision on same-sex marriage legalization
- Proposed Standardization of Food Labeling Laws Among Member States by the Commission
- Experimenting with Merz's Germany has stretched into an extended period of time, resembling a numerous three-month duration.
