
The Attorney General Pam Bondi testifies during a hearing of the Senate credit committee on the president’s budget for the financial year 2026 on Capitol Hill on June 25, 2025 in Washington.
Mariam Zuhaib / AP
hide
tilting legend
Mariam Zuhaib / AP
The Trump administration filed a complaint against the 15 federal judges of Maryland on Tuesday on an order for an ordinance blocking the immediate deportation of migrants contesting their moves, fighting with the federal judiciary on the executive powers of President Donald Trump.
The remarkable action exposes the determination of the administration to exercise its will on the application of immigration as well as increasing exasperation with the federal judges who have repeatedly the actions of the executive branches which they consider as without law and without legal merit.
“It’s extraordinary,” said Laurie Levenson, a professor at the Loyola Law School, about the trial of the Ministry of Justice. “And this increases the efforts of the doj to challenge federal judges.”
The question is an order signed by chief judge George L. Russell III and filed in May preventing the administration from immediately withdrawing the United States which files documents from the district court of Maryland requesting an examination of their detention. The order blocks the withdrawal until 4 p.m. on the second working day after the deposit of the Habeas Corpus petition.
The administration affirms that the automatic break on the moves violates a decision of the Supreme Court and hinders the power of the president to enforce the laws on immigration.
The republican administration has been locked for weeks in an increasing confrontation with the federal judiciary in the midst of a dam of judicial disputes with the president’s efforts to conduct key priorities concerning immigration and other questions. The Ministry of Justice has become more and more frustrated by the decisions blocking the president’s agenda, accusing the judges of having badly prevented the president’s powers.
“President Trump’s executive authority has been compromised since the first hours of his presidency by an endless injunctions designed to stop his program,” Prosecutor General Pamela Bondi said on Wednesday. “The American people elected President Trump to carry out their political program: this model of exceeding undermining the democratic process and cannot be allowed to stand up.”
A spokesperson for the Maryland district court refused to comment.
Trump took the camelaine of unfavorable judicial decisions and, in one case, called for the indictment of a federal judge in Washington who ordered that Planeloads of deported immigrants was returned. This led to an extraordinary declaration of the Supreme Court Judge John Roberts, who declared that “dismissal was not an appropriate response to the disagreement concerning a legal decision”.
Among the judges appointed in the trial figures Paula Xinis, who called the expulsion by the administration of Kilmar Abrego Garcia to El Salvador illegal. The lawyers of Abrego Garcia asked Xinis to impose fines against the administration for contempt, arguing that he had ignored the judicial orders for weeks to return it to the United States
The order signed by Russell said that it aims to maintain the existing conditions and the potential jurisdiction of the court, to ensure that the petitioners of immigrants are able to participate in legal proceedings and access to lawyers and to give the government “the complete opportunity to have it informed and present arguments to its defense”.
In a modified order, Russell said that the court had received an influx of Habeas petitions after hours which “resulted in precipitated and frustrating hearings to obtain clear and concrete information on the location and status of petitioners are elusive”.
The Trump Administration asked the judges of Maryland to challenge the case. He wants an employee to have a federal judge from another state to hear him.
James Sample, professor of constitutional law at Hofstra University, described the trial as an additional part of the erosion of legal standards by the administration. Normally, when the parties are on the losing side of an injunction, they appeal the order-not to prosecute the court or the judges, he said.
On the one hand, he said, the Ministry of Justice has a point that the injunctions should be considered as an extraordinary distribution; It is unusual for them to be granted automatically in an entire case of cases. But, he added, it was the administration’s own actions in the displacement repeatedly of detainees to prevent them from obtaining briefs of Habeas Corpus who prompted the court to make the ordinance.
“The judges here did not ask to be put in this non -enviable position,” said Sample. “Faced with imperfect options, they made a careful choice completely reasonable to modestly verify an executive branch determined to get around any semblance of impartial processes.”