The Trump administration has taken the rare step of suing an entire federal bench in Maryland over a controversial immigration case policy it argues undermines the rule of law.

According to Fox News, the Department of Homeland Security filed suit against all 15 federal judges in Maryland, challenging a standing order that temporarily halts deportations in certain immigration cases without individual judicial review.

At the heart of the legal spat is a standing order that mandates immediate administrative injunctions in habeas corpus cases brought by detained immigrants. The policy delays deportation or status changes for two business days upon filing, a move DHS argues short-circuits due process and exceeds judicial authority.

Trump Administration Blasts Judicial Overreach

Attorneys representing DHS didn't mince words, labeling the Maryland court's approach an “egregious example of judicial overreach.” They emphasized that even judges must adhere to statutory constraints, warning that “a desire for greater convenience” doesn’t justify ignoring the law.

The court claims the injunctions help preserve the status quo amid a spike in after-hours habeas filings. Judges said the flood of petitions, often dropped just before weekends or holidays, makes it hard to conduct meaningful hearings on short notice.

But Trump officials see the policy as a backdoor tactic that delays enforcement of immigration law, enabling removable individuals to buy time and potentially escape lawful deportation through procedural gamesmanship.

Habeas Petitions Used To Stall Deportations

The court justified its blanket injunction policy by pointing to logistical bottlenecks. Judges noted that rapidly gathering reliable details on a detainee’s status and location had become increasingly difficult, especially outside business hours.

Nonetheless, DHS contends the judiciary has gone rogue. They argue that issuing automatic relief without a judge evaluating the merits of each case first turns clerks into de facto immigration judges.

In a further twist, the Trump administration has moved to disqualify every Maryland judge named in the lawsuit, calling for an external judge to handle the matter or for the case to be transferred to another jurisdiction altogether.

Unusual Lawsuit Follows Prior Court Clashes

This isn’t the administration’s first tangle with Maryland judges. One of the defendants, Judge Paula Xinis, made headlines when she ordered DHS to return a deported Salvadoran national, Kilmar Abrego Garcia, after ruling he was denied his due process rights.

Garcia had been deported in error to a prison in El Salvador in March, despite having pending trafficking charges in the United States. He was later brought back following court intervention—a move that didn’t sit well with Trump’s immigration hawks.

The case was widely viewed as a black eye for federal immigration enforcement and provided legal ammunition for critics of DHS deportation practices.

Convenience Versus Constitutional Boundaries

The Maryland court has said its blanket injunctions are only temporary and meant to prevent irreversible harm while a case is prepared. But critics warn that even temporary pauses, if granted indiscriminately, can erode enforcement credibility.

Trump’s DHS maintains that immigration law must be applied consistently and fairly, and that this kind of sweeping judicial shortcut threatens the separation of powers. They say even overwhelmed judges cannot create their own rules.

The suit lays bare a growing power struggle between the executive branch’s enforcement prerogatives and a judiciary increasingly sympathetic to procedural defenses brought by noncitizens. What began as a scheduling workaround is now a constitutional showdown, with federal immigration policy caught in the crossfire.