A U.S. District Court judge has handed the Trump administration a loss in one of the (many) cases being litigated regarding executive actions taken by the administration. There's a bit of a twist (or three) with this one, however:
First, this was a suit filed by the administration, rather than against it. Second, the suit was a rather novel offensive tactic aimed directly at the courts (in this case, the judges of the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland) to challenge a "standing order" implemented as to habeas cases. Third, the judge rendering the decision (Judge Thomas Cullen of the Western District of Virginia) was appointed by President Trump (in 2020).
BALTIMORE (AP) — A federal judge on Tuesday threw out the Trump administration’s lawsuit against Maryland’s entire federal bench over an order by the chief judge that stopped the immediate deportation of migrants challenging their removals.
U.S. District Judge Thomas Cullen granted a request by the judges to toss the case, saying to do otherwise “would run counter to overwhelming precedent, depart from longstanding constitutional tradition, and offend the rule of law.”
“In their wisdom, the Constitution’s framers joined three coordinate branches to establish a single sovereign,” Cullen wrote. “That structure may occasionally engender clashes between two branches and encroachment by one branch on another’s authority. But mediating those disputes must occur in a manner that respects the Judiciary’s constitutional role.”
While some may be surprised (or disappointed) in Cullen's ruling, this may be one of those instances where the ruling, despite being a loss in the short term for the administration, is best in the long run. This isn't to say that the district court's standing order should be (or ultimately will be) upheld. Rather, this direct challenge, with the executive suing the court/judges instead of challenging the order in the normal course of pending cases, may not be the best approach (though the impetus behind it is somewhat understandable).
RELATED: New: Obama Judge Blocks Abrego-Garcia Deportation to Uganda, and the Game Being Played Is Obvious
In his 39-page ruling, Cullen notes that the Maryland standing order limits the stay to two days, much like the courts of appeal do when imposing temporary stays of removal pending review of a Board of Immigration Appeals final order.
Cullen further expounds:
According to the Executive, the standing orders are unlawful for three principal reasons. First, the Executive argues that they are inconsistent with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure because they automatically afford injunctive relief only to a special class of litigants (i.e., removable aliens) without requiring those litigants to satisfy the prerequisites for this type of equitable relief. Second, the Executive contends that the standing orders are ultra vires—beyond the power of the court—given the limited statutory authority of district courts to review immigration matters. Third, the Executive submits that, in issuing the orders, the District of Maryland violated well-established procedures for promulgating local rules of court.
Fair enough, as far as it goes. If these arguments were made in the proper forum, they might well get some traction. And under normal circumstances, it would not be surprising if the Executive raised these concerns through the channels Congress prescribed—that is, by challenging the orders as applied to a particular habeas proceeding through a direct appeal to the Fourth Circuit or, as expressly authorized by federal statute, by petitioning the Judicial Council of the Fourth Circuit, which has the authority to rescind or modify local court rules. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 2071(c), 332(d)(4).
In sum, Cullen doesn't appear to be taking issue with the administration's aim (of challenging the standing order) but rather the chosen method of doing so. The administration may, of course, opt to appeal Cullen's decision, but one suspects it may not meet with much success in the 4th Circuit. And, if I were placing bets on it, I'd be highly skeptical of a win at SCOTUS on this one, as well. Again, not because the underlying objection to the standing order is meritless, but because this likely isn't the appropriate way to challenge it.
As always, we'll continue to follow the case and report on any updates as warranted.
Editor's Note: Unelected federal judges are hijacking President Trump's agenda and insulting the will of the people
Help us expose out-of-control judges dead set on halting President Trump's mandate for change. Join RedState VIP and use promo code FIGHT to get 60% off your membership.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member