Attorney General Pam Bondi testifies during Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies hearing titled "A Review of the President's FY2026 Budget Request for the Department of Justice," in Dirksen building on Wednesday, June 25, 2025.
'Authoritarianism 101': Observers Decry DOJ's Lawsuit Against Maryland Federal Bench
"It's hard not to see this challenge as further escalation by the administration of its opposition to courts that have sought to check illegal government conduct," said one lawyer and director at the Brennan Center for Justice.
In an escalation of the Trump administration's tense relationship with the judiciary, the U.S. Department of Justice on Tuesday sued the entire 15-judge bench of Maryland's U.S. District Court over a recent immigration-related order, a move that was met with alarm by several observers.
The lawsuit comes in response to an order by Chief Judge George L. Russell III, who in May imposed a stay for a period of two days on the deportation of any immigration custody detainee in Maryland who files a petition for habeas corpus, which is a legal action challenging the lawfulness of a person's detention. The plaintiffs in the new case are the United States and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.
According to The Washington Post, the complaint makes the case that the order was "unlawful" and "antidemocratic." It also alleges that the order runs afoul of Supreme Court precedent and intrudes "on core Executive Branch powers." Russell's order applies not only to cases before him, but also the 14 other district judges in Maryland, per the Post.
"President [Donald] 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," said U.S. Attorney General Pamela Bondi in a statement announcing the lawsuit. "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."
Adam Bonica, a political science professor at Stanford University, called the DOJ's core claim in the lawsuit "stunning." On his Substack, Bonica wrote that the DOJ is essentially arguing that the Trump administration is being injured "by the very existence of judicial oversight."
Several legal experts characterized the lawsuit as an attack on judicial independence, as did the watchdog group Project on Government Oversight.
"This isn't about process. It's about punishing judges for rulings the administration doesn't like. That's authoritarianism 101," the group said in a post on X on Wednesday.
Alicia Bannon, the director of the Judiciary Program at the Brennan Center for Justice, added that "if the administration's challenge is successful, it will be far easier to evade the courts altogether in future immigration cases."
"It's hard not to see this challenge as further escalation by the administration of its opposition to courts that have sought to check illegal government conduct," she said.
The judges named in the lawsuit have ruled on major cases involving the Trump administration this year. For example, Judge Paula Xinis, one of the defendants, is overseeing the high-profile case of a Maryland man who was wrongly deported to El Salvador earlier this year. He is back on U.S. soil now after the Trump administration delayed returning him to the country.
Urgent. It's never been this bad.
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission from the outset was simple. To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It’s never been this bad out there. And it’s never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed and doing some of its best and most important work, the threats we face are intensifying. Right now, with just four days to go in our Spring Campaign, we are not even halfway to our goal. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Can you make a gift right now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? There is no backup plan or rainy day fund. There is only you. —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
In an escalation of the Trump administration's tense relationship with the judiciary, the U.S. Department of Justice on Tuesday sued the entire 15-judge bench of Maryland's U.S. District Court over a recent immigration-related order, a move that was met with alarm by several observers.
The lawsuit comes in response to an order by Chief Judge George L. Russell III, who in May imposed a stay for a period of two days on the deportation of any immigration custody detainee in Maryland who files a petition for habeas corpus, which is a legal action challenging the lawfulness of a person's detention. The plaintiffs in the new case are the United States and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.
According to The Washington Post, the complaint makes the case that the order was "unlawful" and "antidemocratic." It also alleges that the order runs afoul of Supreme Court precedent and intrudes "on core Executive Branch powers." Russell's order applies not only to cases before him, but also the 14 other district judges in Maryland, per the Post.
"President [Donald] 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," said U.S. Attorney General Pamela Bondi in a statement announcing the lawsuit. "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."
Adam Bonica, a political science professor at Stanford University, called the DOJ's core claim in the lawsuit "stunning." On his Substack, Bonica wrote that the DOJ is essentially arguing that the Trump administration is being injured "by the very existence of judicial oversight."
Several legal experts characterized the lawsuit as an attack on judicial independence, as did the watchdog group Project on Government Oversight.
"This isn't about process. It's about punishing judges for rulings the administration doesn't like. That's authoritarianism 101," the group said in a post on X on Wednesday.
Alicia Bannon, the director of the Judiciary Program at the Brennan Center for Justice, added that "if the administration's challenge is successful, it will be far easier to evade the courts altogether in future immigration cases."
"It's hard not to see this challenge as further escalation by the administration of its opposition to courts that have sought to check illegal government conduct," she said.
The judges named in the lawsuit have ruled on major cases involving the Trump administration this year. For example, Judge Paula Xinis, one of the defendants, is overseeing the high-profile case of a Maryland man who was wrongly deported to El Salvador earlier this year. He is back on U.S. soil now after the Trump administration delayed returning him to the country.
In an escalation of the Trump administration's tense relationship with the judiciary, the U.S. Department of Justice on Tuesday sued the entire 15-judge bench of Maryland's U.S. District Court over a recent immigration-related order, a move that was met with alarm by several observers.
The lawsuit comes in response to an order by Chief Judge George L. Russell III, who in May imposed a stay for a period of two days on the deportation of any immigration custody detainee in Maryland who files a petition for habeas corpus, which is a legal action challenging the lawfulness of a person's detention. The plaintiffs in the new case are the United States and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.
According to The Washington Post, the complaint makes the case that the order was "unlawful" and "antidemocratic." It also alleges that the order runs afoul of Supreme Court precedent and intrudes "on core Executive Branch powers." Russell's order applies not only to cases before him, but also the 14 other district judges in Maryland, per the Post.
"President [Donald] 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," said U.S. Attorney General Pamela Bondi in a statement announcing the lawsuit. "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."
Adam Bonica, a political science professor at Stanford University, called the DOJ's core claim in the lawsuit "stunning." On his Substack, Bonica wrote that the DOJ is essentially arguing that the Trump administration is being injured "by the very existence of judicial oversight."
Several legal experts characterized the lawsuit as an attack on judicial independence, as did the watchdog group Project on Government Oversight.
"This isn't about process. It's about punishing judges for rulings the administration doesn't like. That's authoritarianism 101," the group said in a post on X on Wednesday.
Alicia Bannon, the director of the Judiciary Program at the Brennan Center for Justice, added that "if the administration's challenge is successful, it will be far easier to evade the courts altogether in future immigration cases."
"It's hard not to see this challenge as further escalation by the administration of its opposition to courts that have sought to check illegal government conduct," she said.
The judges named in the lawsuit have ruled on major cases involving the Trump administration this year. For example, Judge Paula Xinis, one of the defendants, is overseeing the high-profile case of a Maryland man who was wrongly deported to El Salvador earlier this year. He is back on U.S. soil now after the Trump administration delayed returning him to the country.