Judge Doubtful of DOJ’s Case Against Maryland Federal Court (1)

A federal judge said he’s skeptical of the Justice Department’s arguments in suing all federal district judges in Maryland over a standing order blocking immediate deportations.

“One of the things about me is, I don’t have a very good poker face,” US District Judge Thomas Cullen told DOJ lawyer Elizabeth Hedges during a hearing Wednesday. “And I think you’ve probably picked up on the fact that I have some skepticism.”

The Justice Department in June filed an unprecedented lawsuit against the entire US District Court for the District of Maryland, targeting a standing order that blocks the immediate deportation of detained people who file habeas petitions.

The case plays out on the backdrop of President Donald Trump’s administration’s offensive against the federal judiciary. He’s called for judicial impeachments in social media posts, and some officials have been accused of violating court orders, allegations they deny.

Cullen, who typically sits in Roanoke, Va., but was tapped to preside over this case, pressed Hedges on other pathways the department could have taken in challenging the Maryland trial court’s standing order, as he heard arguments on whether to dismiss the case. Cullen said he’ll issue a ruling by Labor Day.

“Can we take your word on that, that this is a one-off?” the judge asked Hedges of the case.

Hedges declined to commit to no similar lawsuits against federal courts in the future. This is a party coming to court to settle a difference, and it “is not an assault on the separations of power,” she said.

“I can’t contemplate this is the sort of thing that would occur more than once in a generation, just because this is a unique situation,” Hedges said.

‘Uncomfortable Circumstances’

Paul Clement, a top conservative litigator with the law firm Clement & Murphy who’s representing the Maryland court, urged the judge to dismiss the lawsuit.

He pointed to his own hiring as outside counsel for the judges, who are typically represented in court by the Justice Department, as one of the disruptions caused by the department’s approach in handling the dispute.

Clement said the government failed to state a claim in bringing the lawsuit. Executive officials could have challenged the standing order on appeal or brought their concerns to the US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit’s Judicial Council, he said. The court could also dismiss the case on judicial immunity grounds, he said.

He added that the logic of this litigation could be extended to challenges against the Fourth Circuit.

“It would put your honor in even more uncomfortable circumstances” to handle a case against the federal appeals court, which reviews Cullen’s decisions, Clement said.

Hedges later said suing the circuit “is not on the table in this case.”

If the case were to survive the motion to dismiss, it would open both the court and executive branch officials to discovery and depositions, and each side would likely raise privilege issues, Cullen said.

The department could “avoid that kind of nightmare scenario” had it taken any of the alternative paths to suing, Clement said.

Cullen also asked why the department didn’t take the issue up to the US Supreme Court, saying officials may have been able to get a quicker decision from the justices through the shadow docket — or requests for interim relief from a lower court ruling — than through this lawsuit.

Hedges said the department would run into issues if it tried to challenge the standing order on appeal, partly because it’s been winning at the district court level when it seeks to dismiss habeas petitions.

Preliminary Injunction

Cullen also heard arguments Wednesday on the Justice Department’s request for a preliminary injunction against the standing order, which he’ll only have to rule on if he allows the lawsuit to move forward.

He seemed more receptive to the government on that issue, acknowledging Hedges’ argument that the order effectively served as a temporary restraining order against the administration.

Even if the government is temporarily blocked from removing a person from the country, the standing order doesn’t involve the kind of “preliminary assessment” that a temporary restraining order does, Clement said.

He pointed to the Supreme Court’s ruling that blocked the Trump administration from deporting alleged Venezuelan gang members. “The whole point” of that decision was to preserve the court’s jurisdiction, and the Maryland standing order is similar, Clement said.

Hedges also said district courts are on “shaky ground” when it comes to their ability to hear these kinds of petitions in immigration cases. The standing order applies in cases in which the district court ultimately dismisses the petition but the government can’t remove anyone until the dismissal happens, she said.

Clement argued that even if the petitions are dismissed, the government isn’t irreparably harmed by a short pause in the removal proceedings.

The government has shown in other cases that, if someone is wrongly removed from the US, “the best they can do is facilitate that return,” he said. The standing order can prevent a wrongful deportation in the first place, he said.

A Maryland district court judge has overseen a lawsuit by Kilmar Abrego Garcia, who was wrongfully removed to a notorious prison in his native El Salvador. The Trump administration initially said they couldn’t bring him back to the US, but he was later returned to face federal human smuggling charges in Tennessee. Abrego Garcia has denied wrongdoing and pleaded not guilty in his criminal case.

The case is United States of America v. Russell, D. Md., No. 1:25-cv-02029, hearing held 8/13/25.