On June 24, the U.S. Department of Justice filed an unprecedented complaint against all 15 of the federal district court judges in Maryland, as well as the clerk of the Maryland district court, for engaging in what Attorney General Pam Bondi calls an “egregious example of unlawful judicial overreach into the Executive Branch’s ability to enforce and administer federal [immigration] law.”

If successful, it may be the first time a judgment against federal judges has been rendered in such a very historic case.

The chief culprit in this innovative lawsuit is Chief Judge George Russell, a Barack Obama appointee who became the chief judge in 2024. He and the other federal judges are accused of violating federal immigration law, the requirements imposed by the Supreme Court before a preliminary injunction can be granted, and the federal law governing the promulgation of the local rules of a federal court. 

These violations are tied into a “Standing Order” and an “Amended Standing Order” that Russell issued on May 21 and May 28 that apply to all the judges and all their courts. Apparently, having to work outside of normal business hours and weekends interferes too much with the leisure time of the judges since the orders are based on Russell complaining about the “recent influx of habeas petitions concerning alien detainees” that are being “filed after normal court hours and on weekends and holidays.”

To save that leisure time, the orders provide for the automatic issuance of an injunction the moment a habeas corpus petition is filed by an alien with the court clerk, Catherine Stavlas. That injunction prohibits the federal government from removing such aliens “from the continental United States or altering their legal status.” 

Such an injunction will be issued “in every such case upon its filing.” It remains in effect until the end of the “second business day following the filing” unless one of the 15 judges extends it, thus giving them plenty of time to finish their golf games.

Russell claims these orders are intended to “preserve existing conditions and the potential jurisdiction of th[e] Court over pending matters while the Court determines the scope of its authority to grant” relief, as well as to evaluate “in-court testimony that may be offered.” But that is putting the cart before the horse because Russell is authorizing the issuance of injunctions before any evidence has been heard, before the government has been notified about the case, and before a court even knows if it has jurisdiction over the claim.

The Justice Department asserts three legal violations in the lawsuit against Russell and his judicial collaborators. 

The first is that the issuance of an automatic injunction violates the four-factor test set forth by the Supreme Court that must be considered before a judge can issue a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction in a specific case. A judge must consider the plaintiff’s likelihood of success on the merits, whether the plaintiff will suffer irreparable harm without an injunction, the balance of the harms to the plaintiff and the other party (here the government), and the public interest. 

Obviously, with an automatic injunction, none of that is being done at all. The standing orders “are therefore unlawful,” says the complaint, a position it is hard to argue against. As the Justice Department sardonically asserts, “Inconvenience to the Court is not a basis to enter an injunction, and filings outside normal business hours, scheduling difficulties, and the possibility of hurried and frustrating hearings are not irreparable harm.”

Second, the DOJ points out that federal immigration law “deprives district courts of jurisdiction to issue orders that stay the execution of removal orders and to hear cases challenging the execution of removal orders.” Other provisions bar judicial review of many “discretionary judgments regarding release and detention of aliens.” For aliens in expedited removal proceedings, federal law limits judicial review of habeas corpus petitions to “just three narrow grounds.” Thus, the standing orders are also “invalid and unlawful” since they violate multiple federal immigration statutes that bar, restrict, or limit the review of federal courts.

Finally, these standing orders are “in function and effect” local rules governing the conduct of the Maryland federal courts, says the Justice Department. Thus, under 28 U.S.C. § 2071, they should have gone through “notice-and-comment rulemaking” before being promulgated. 

In other words, they should have been published as proposed new rules with the public given the opportunity to comment on them. That was not done. They also were not “submitted to a rules advisory committee, the judicial council of the Fourth Circuit, or the Judicial Conference.” They are “therefore unlawful and invalid.”

For a lawyer like me, the practical issues brought up by this lawsuit are fascinating. Can you imagine being the staffer who has to make sure all these federal judges, who consider themselves gods in their courtrooms, are served with the complaint? And what judge will the lawsuit get assigned to and in what district will it end up? The complaint was filed in the Maryland district court, but every single judge in Maryland, as well as the office of the court clerk, has an obvious conflict of interest and will be disqualified from handling the case.

Anyone who thinks this is a frivolous case that has no merit is wrong. The Justice Department raises very serious issues about Russell’s possible violation of federal law and Supreme Court precedent. 

In what may be the ultimate irony, what is the Justice Department’s demand for relief?

That this Court issue preliminary and permanent injunctions that prohibit the Defendants … from implementing or effectuating the Standing Order and Amended Standing Order and from enforcing their terms in any case.

A request for an injunction against an injunction. Sounds like a line out of “My Cousin Vinny.”  

Republished from The Daily Signal.