DOJ Files Lawsuit in Maryland Federal Court, Demands Every Judge Recuse From It

The Department of Justice (DOJ) has filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, naming every federal judge within that court as a defendant in its complaint.

The lawsuit centers on a court order issued last month by one of the judges in that federal district, which placed automatic blocks for two business days on the deportation of migrants in Maryland who file challenges to their detention by immigration enforcement agencies. The order was issued to slow down the deportations being conducted by the administration without due process, and came in part due to the illegal deportation of Kilmar Abrego García, an immigrant who was lawfully living in Maryland, to an El Salvador megaprison.

The order noted that the administration was filing deportation orders against residents in the state at odd hours of the week — in the evenings, on weekends, or on holidays — in “hurried and frustrating” ways, making it more difficult for immigrants to challenge them.

The DOJ’s lawsuit argues that, under the Immigration and Nationality Act, federal courts lack the authority to interfere in deportation proceedings.

The DOJ calls last month’s order an “egregious example of judicial overreach, one that would interfere with the Trump administration’s prerogatives and the president’s vast authority over immigration enforcement.” It further claims that judicial review of presidential actions — a centuries-long practice utilized by federal judges — is an “undermining [of] the democratic process,” implying that Trump should be allowed to conduct his anti-immigration actions without impediment due to his election.

“Such orders diminish the votes of the citizens who elected the head of the Executive Branch,” the lawsuit alleges.

The lawsuit also makes the unusual demand for all 15 judges on the district court to recuse themselves from presiding over arguments, instead requesting that a federal judge from a different state rule on the case.

Trump has frequently argued that judges are undermining the democratic will of the people who elected him, but the setup of American democracy (including the three separate branches of power) includes checks and balances on the president. (Trump’s claim of a “mandate” is also flawed — he did not win the presidency last fall with a majority of the popular vote, and his Electoral College win was by one of the smallest margins in U.S. history.)

Polling demonstrates that voters are opposed to Trump’s attacks on the judiciary. In a survey published by The Sunday Times this week, when asked if Trump goes too far in his criticisms of the judiciary (specifically citing his calling jurists “a handful of communist, radical-left judges”), 56 percent said he does go too far, while only 20 percent say he did not.

The poll also asked if presidents should be allowed to ignore Supreme Court rulings that go against their campaign pledges, as the DOJ seems to argue should be the case in its lawsuit. Only 19 percent of respondents said they should be able to ignore those rulings, while 56 percent said they shouldn’t.

Only 24 percent of Americans believe judges in the U.S. have too much power, according to the poll. Forty-three percent of respondents said they trust judges to protect fundamental rights, while only 32 percent said they trust the executive branch to protect rights at this moment in time.