The Justice Department Sues All The Federal Judges In Maryland

Support for this podcast and the following message come from Sierra Nevada Brewing Company, where pure ingredients and sustainable brewing meet a legacy of craft. Share one with a friend today and taste for yourself.
Sierra Nevada, taste what matters. Please drink responsibly.
This message comes from NPR sponsor Shopify. No idea where to sell? Shopify puts you in control of every sales channel.
It is the commerce platform revolutionizing millions of businesses worldwide. Whether you're a garage entrepreneur or IPO ready, Shopify is the only tool you need to start, run, and grow your business without the struggle.
Once you've reached your audience, Shopify has the internet's best converting checkout to help you turn them from browsers to buyers. Go to shopify.com slash NPR to take your business to the next level today.
Hey there, it's Ashley. Before we get started, I have a quick favor to ask.
We want to hear from you. Send us your timestamps of what you're getting up to this summer, whether you're out and about or just hanging out.
Record a voice memo on your phone and send it to nprpolitics at npr.org with the subject line timestamp. And we might just use it on the show.
And if you need a reminder of what a timestamp sounds like, just listen right now. Hi, this is Rob, waiting at Dulles Airport to fly to Portugal, where I'll be competing with my border collie, Typhon, in the Senior Agility World Championships.
Wow. This podcast was recorded at...
12.55 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, July 9th, 2025.

Things may have changed by the time you listen to this podcast, but I'll hopefully be coming home with ribbons and definitely with my best boy.

I love it. Dog people activated.
That is so exciting.

I want an update on that competition for sure.

I didn't know that senior dogs have their own thing. That makes a lot of sense, though.
Hey there, it's the NPR Politics Podcast. I'm Ashley Lopez.
I cover politics. I'm Carrie Johnson.
I cover the Justice Department. And I'm Mara Liason, Senior National Political Correspondent.
And today we're talking about an unusual move by the Justice Department to sue all of the federal judges in Maryland. Carrie, this is your reporting.
Can you explain where this is all coming from and why specifically Maryland? Yeah, sure. So back in May, the chief judge in the District of Maryland issued an order basically saying for any migrant who filed a habeas petition with the court, basically challenging the legality of their deportation, that that case would be frozen for 48 hours to give the judges in Maryland time to consider the legal arguments and the status of that person.
And all of this came down in the wake of the deportation of the Maryland man Kilmer Abrego Garcia, who the Justice Department later admitted was deported to El Salvador in an administrative error. There have been a lot of legal clashes about whether he got proper due process, what exactly he did or didn't do.
But what it appears to be is that these judges in Maryland basically wanted to put a temporary pause, a 48-hour pause, on any deportation so they could get their arms around the facts of these cases. What happened to Kilmar Abrego-Garcia? That legal fight is still going on after a lot of back and forth, including a trip all the way up to the Supreme Court.
That case is now being fought in multiple states. Kilmar Abrego-Garcia is now back in the United States, but he's being detained and the Justice Department is charging him with multiple criminal offenses.
He's fighting those charges and there are some questions about the strength of that case. And what is so unreasonable about 48 hours? What is the big principle that they think the courts violated? Well, you know, the Justice Department basically says that these courts are infringing on the executive branch's core power with respect to national security, the border, and immigration.
And they argue in this lawsuit, which is pretty unusual, that the judges in Maryland are basically violating congressional limits that have been put on district courts. District courts are not supposed to be making these final calls with respect to deportation to begin with, they say.
They say the judges themselves are disregarding their own process for adopting rules for courts.

And basically, they just say they're way, way, way overreaching.

You know, DOJ says it's really been used in at least 12 cases so far, and it's a big problem for the Justice Department, so they want it to stop. Well, you know, the executive branch does have a lot of leeway with immigration decisions traditionally.
So what is the role of the court? It's not an immigration court. What's the role of the Maryland court in dealing with these cases? I think we're going to find out as a result of this lawsuit.

But I reached out to a guy named Andrew Arthur. He's a fellow at the Center for Immigration Studies, which advocates for limits on immigration.
Here's what he had to say about this case. It's an aggressive move by the DOJ, but arguably this is an aggressive move by the district court.
I'm not aware of any other court

in any other context that has issued a standing order on injunctive relief like this. Congress has limited the authority of district courts to issue orders in immigration cases.
Section 242 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, attempts to transfer all appeals of

administration. immigration cases, Section 242 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, attempts to transfer all appeals of administrative immigration orders to the circuit courts.
And Arthur basically told me that these temporary pauses are supposed to be extraordinary, but what the Maryland court has done is to kind of make them automatic. So he has a big problem with it.
Well, Carrie, I mean, to what extent has something like this happened before? Well, let me first say that this is super unusual. The Justice Department has sued this entire federal district court bench in Maryland.
And normally, and in normal case, when a judge is sued by, say, a prisoner who's appeared before the judge, the Justice Department is the one that's defending the judge. In this case, the DOJ is the one doing the suing.
So the judges have had to go and find their own lawyer, and they found an awfully good one. His name is Paul Clement.
He was the Solicitor General under President George W. Bush, and he's been doing a lot of pro bono work in a lot of cases this year involving kind of touchstones with respect to the Trump administration.
And this is so odd that the Justice Department also sued the clerk of the court in Maryland. So the clerk of the court is now kind of prohibited from doing any kind of like administrative tasks like with the docket.
So they've had to transfer this case to Roanoke, Virginia, to Judge Thomas Cullen, who was appointed by President Trump in his first term. And everything is going to have to go through a special procedure because this is so odd to begin with.
But despite all the talk about this being unprecedented, which I've heard a lot from lawyers around the country, the Trump DOJ says they have found at least one case where the Justice Department has sued an entire court before. And that actually happened back in 1995 involving the U.S.
attorney in Rhode Island. His name is Sheldon Whitehouse.
That name may be familiar to you because he's currently a sitting Democratic senator from Rhode Island. And that case revolved around the court in Rhode Island imposing kind of a rule that would make the Justice Department take extra steps before it wanted to issue a subpoena to a lawyer.
All right, we're going to take a quick break. More in a moment.
This message comes from Schwab. Everyone has moments when they could have done better, like cutting their own hair or forgetting sunscreen so now you look like a tomato.
Same goes for where you invest. Level up and invest smarter with Schwab.
Get market insights, education, and human help when you need it. Learn more at schwab.com.
Support for this podcast and the following message come from Sutter Health. Whether it's prenatal care or postmenopausal guidance, Sutter's team of OBGYNs, doctors, and nurses are Transcription by CastingWords every stage of her life.
Learn more at SutterHealth.org. This message comes from Wise, the app for using money around the globe.
When you manage your money with Wise, you'll always get the mid-market exchange rate with no hidden fees. Join millions of customers and visit Wise.com.
T's and C's apply. This message comes from Visit St.
Pete, Clearwater, Florida. Visitors can unwind on 35 miles of white sand beaches along the Emerald Gulf and find a variety of open-air dining options, including restaurants recognized by the Michelin Guide.
Learn more at visitspc.com. And we're back.
Mara, President Trump and his administration have criticized judges' rulings before and throughout his time in office, but pursuing legal action against the judges themselves, it seems like a whole other thing. How does this tie into the Trump administration's sort of general attitude towards the judiciary? Donald Trump has attacked the judiciary and individual judges almost at every turn.
I mean, he's talked about unelected judges. He feels that the Justice Department was weaponized against him in his first term.
And he has yet to actually defy the Supreme Court, but he doesn't have a whole lot of respect for judges except for the ones that he appointed to the Supreme, or for, you could argue, the rule of law. I mean, that TikTok case, which is so interesting, law that was passed by big bipartisan majorities upheld by the Supreme Court, he's ignored it.
He was allowed to have one extension before he had to obey the law, and he took that, and now he's issued more extensions, and he doesn't seem to care. So I think in general, Donald Trump feels that his branch of government, the executive branch, should be stronger and more powerful than the two other branches, Congress, which is pretty much abdicated, and the judiciary.
And that's why he keeps on attacking judges, and now he's suing them. I think one of the reasons why this new lawsuit by the Justice Department against these federal judges in Maryland has gotten so many lawyers concerned is that it's coming at a time when threats of violence against judges are up this year and when many people, including multiple members of Congress and some people inside the Trump administration, have actually called for impeachment of federal judges who are basically doing their jobs and they don't like the decisions these judges have made.
So the climate is quite tense right now. And I talked about that with Andre Davis.
He actually sat on the district court in Maryland and the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals before he retired. And Judge Davis told me he found out about this lawsuit by the Justice Department when he was on a plane headed to North Carolina with a number of other judges who had actually been sued.
They were all going to some big time judicial conference. And here's what he said about the case.
It's outrageous that they actually named individually in their official capacities all 15 judges of the court. And so you have to ask yourself, what is going on here? What kind of performance? Who is the audience for this? Judge Davis told me that in a normal course of business, if the administration or the Justice Department didn't like something a judge had done, it would have a back and forth.
It would ask the judges for a meeting. It would lodge an appeal.
But in this case, the Justice Department actually sued all of them and the clerk too. And he says that really represents a broader breakdown in the communication and respect that the executive branch has for the judiciary.
In fact, things have gotten so tense that there's a nonprofit group called Keep Our Republic, and they've actually created a group of retired judges. There are 50 of them now, including Judge Davis, to speak up about some of these issues.
Because if you're a sitting judge, you can't ethically talk about these kinds of issues. So Judge Davis told me they're trying to be a voice.
Yeah. Well, Carrie, what happens next and what are you going to be looking out for as this case, or I guess several cases, work its way through the courts? The new judge hearing this case against the Maryland judges has called for a hearing in mid-August.
So a lot more will happen then. And, you know, these issues are so tense that it may be that whatever happens here, the losing side appeals, and it could get all the way back up to the Supreme Court, which, by the way, despite President Trump's criticism of lower court judges this year for ruling against him, and we should say that lower court judges appointed by Democratic presidents and by Republican presidents have ruled against him in many situations, the Trump administration is largely winning at the Supreme Court level.
So if this case gets that high and given how much deference the Supreme Court has given to the executive branch on issues involving immigration and national security, there could be some reason for the Trump administration and the DOJ to feel good about this case. Yeah.
I mean, what I'm watching is definitely what the Supreme Court does. That's the final arbiter here.
And the president has said

that he will always follow Supreme Court decisions. He is very confident that the Supreme Court will rule for him.
So I guess the question I have about cases like this is, are we on a slippery slope to having a very different form of government, one with an all-powerful, unchecked executive, or not?

Or will the judiciary,

which is the branch

that's supposed to tell

the executive, or not? Or will the judiciary, which is the branch that's supposed to tell the executive if he's actually executing the laws faithfully, that's why he's called an executive, will push back against him? And that's the big question of the Trump era, and we're going to find the answer out, hopefully, in a couple months. Yeah.
All right. Well, let's leave it there for today.

I'm Ashley Lopez.

I cover politics.

I'm Kerry Johnson.

I cover the Justice Department.

And I'm Mara Liason, senior national political correspondent.

And thank you for listening to the NPR Politics Podcast. This message comes from Mint Mobile.
Mint Mobile took what's wrong with wireless and made it right. They offer premium wireless plans for less, and all plans include high-speed data, unlimited talk and text, and nationwide coverage.
See for yourself at mintmobile.com slash switch. This message comes from Bombas.
Socks, underwear, and t-shirts are the top three requested clothing items by people experiencing homelessness. Bombas makes all three and donates one item for every item purchased.
Go to bombas.com slash NPR and use code NPR for 20% off. This message comes from Mint Mobile.
If you're tired of spending hundreds on big wireless bills, bogus fees, and free perks,

Mint Mobile might be right for you with plans starting from $15 a month.

Shop plans today at mintmobile.com slash switch.

Upfront payment of $45 for a three-month 5GB plan required.

New customer offer for first three months only.

Then full price plan options available.

Taxes and fees extra.

See Mint Mobile for details.