Trump-Appointed Judge Rules the Administration Lacks Authority to Sue District Court Judges

What does the principle of the separation of powers have to do with due process in immigration cases? A great deal, according to a recent ruling by a Trump-appointed federal district judge in Virginia.

In June, the Trump administration sued the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland in a challenge to that court’s management of certain immigration cases—the first lawsuit of its kind where one branch of government has sued another branch. In a 39-page order dismissing the administration’s lawsuit, U.S. District Judge Thomas Cullen ruled that the administration not only lacked authority to bring the lawsuit but that it fundamentally misunderstood its role in our constitutional system.

Background

Under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), Congress empowered the Executive Branch to pursue removal of certain immigrants and established a special court system to handle such proceedings. When an immigrant decides to challenge a removal decision by an immigration court, he or she must appeal directly to a U.S. Court of Appeals. With limited exceptions, district courts play no role in removal proceedings.

Rather than pursuing removal through the traditional INA scheme, the Trump Administration has chosen to remove certain immigrants through the Alien Enemies Act (AEA), allowing it to bypass the INA’s procedural hurdles. In April, the U.S. Supreme Court held that immigrants who want to challenge their removal under the AEA must file a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in district courts.

The problem was that immigrants seeking such relief were often deported before the courts could decide whether their petitions had merit. To address this problem, the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland issued a standing order last May that automatically stayed for up to two days the removal of any immigrant who filed a petition for habeas corpus.

Several courts of appeal have similar standing orders. Such stays preserve the status quo and protect the court’s jurisdiction while allowing an immigrant to exercise his or her due process rights before it is too late. For example, the 4th Circuit, which includes the District of Maryland, has a standing order staying removal for up to 14 days—much longer than the stay authorized by the District of Maryland.

Trump Administration’s Lawsuit

In June, U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi took the unprecedented step of suing every district court judge in the District of Maryland, alleging that the court abused its equitable powers by issuing the standing order and asserting that the order interfered with the Executive Branch’s prerogative over the enforcement of immigration laws. Bondi also argued that federal district courts lack authority over immigration matters, ignoring the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent ruling that district courts alone have jurisdiction over petitions for habeas corpus challenging removal under the AEA.

Representing the defendants, former George W. Bush administration Solicitor General Paul Clement moved to dismiss the lawsuit, arguing that it cannot be reconciled with our constitutional scheme of separation of powers. Well-settled law empowers courts to take necessary steps to preserve their constitutionally vested jurisdiction over pending cases, Clement noted. But rather than challenging a court’s application of the standing order in a specific case, which is the only legally authorized way to challenge a court’s encroachment on Executive Branch authority, the administration’s lawsuit asked that the standing order be invalidated in its entirety—a request that, if granted, would have essentially allowed the Executive Branch to tell  the Judicial Branch what it could and could not do. Clement further noted that judges are immune from suit under long-established precedent that protects them from being sued in their official capacities, and that the suit does not identify any law that entitled the administration to relief.

Order Dismissing Lawsuit

In his August 26, 2025, order dismissing the administration’s lawsuit, Judge Cullen had little difficulty finding that the administration was entirely off its footing by suing in the first place, regardless of whether its arguments had merit (which he concluded they do not).

Judge Cullen observed that courts are constitutionally prohibited from exercising general oversight of the law and are limited to deciding specific questions that arise in a specific “case or controversy.” He agreed with the defendants that normally, the way for the administration to challenge the court’s stay was to demonstrate, in a pending case challenging removal, that the stay improperly trampled on its Executive Branch prerogative.

“But as events over the past several months have revealed, these are not normal times—at least regarding the interplay between the Executive and this coordinate branch of government,” he wrote. Noting the scorched-earth strategy the Trump administration has employed against all judicial decisions it does not like, the judge wrote that “it’s no surprise that the Executive chose a different, and more confrontational, path entirely.”  Since tension between the branches of government is not only commonplace but is the definition of our constitutional system, the judge’s decision added, “this concerted effort by the Executive to smear and impugn individual judges who rule against it is both unprecedented and unfortunate.”

Judge Cullen concluded that federal courts have broad authority to issue stays they deem necessary to preserve their authority. But even if there was any law that entitled the administration to relief, judges are protected from suit under the doctrines of sovereign and judicial immunity.

Judge Cullen also reminded the Trump administration that sovereign power is shared among three coequal branches of government, each of which has an interest in enforcing immigration laws. The role of the judiciary is to ensure that the administration does not exceed its constitutional and statutory authority in executing its own role. As it is, the judge noted, “the Executive appears to confuse an executive prerogative with a sovereign interest.”

The administration has appealed to the 4^th Circuit.

Conclusion

The rule of law is not a partisan matter. The responsibility of the courts in protecting the due process rights of those subject to government action entails the authority to take reasoned and necessary measures to preserve that role in a way that respects the separation of powers. As Judge Cullen noted, “to hold otherwise would run counter to overwhelming precedent, depart form longstanding constitutional tradition, and offend the rule of law.”