The DOJ Sues Maryland Federal Judges for Obstructing Lawful Deportations

By The Blog Source

Alleging that all federal judges in Maryland have issued a blanket delay on removal for detained illegal aliens, the Department of Justice has launched an unprecedented lawsuit against the entire federal bench in Maryland for impeding legitimate deportations. At issue in the case is Chief Judge Russell's May standing order, which, for any immigration detainee who files a habeas corpus petition, mandates a 48-hour stay of deportation.

According to Russell, the court was inundated with urgent petitions submitted on weekends and holidays, frequently with incomplete or confusing material, and these circumstances led to a surge in last-minute filings, which prompted the order. According to a representative from the Department of Justice, the decision "flouts the law," and the judges were accused of prioritizing convenience over legal duties.

As part of a significant escalation in its dispute with the court over immigration policy, the Justice Department has initiated a broad legal challenge against every federal judge in Maryland. Chief Judge George L. Russell III is at the heart of the matter; according to his May court decision, any deportation attempts are immediately halted in the event that the detainee files a habeas petition challenging their illegal incarceration.

"The recent influx of habeas petitions concerning alien detainees... that have been filed after normal court hours and on weekends and holidays has created scheduling difficulties and resulted in hurried and frustrating hearings." Russell justified the decision in the order by highlighting the logistical challenges caused by an unexpected surge of emergency filings. He went on to say that court personnel had a challenging time getting accurate information regarding the whereabouts and legal status of petitioners in many instances.

However, the Justice Department deemed their explanations inadequate. According to the Department of Justice's complaint, "Defendants' license to flout the law" cannot be justified by feelings of dissatisfaction or a desire for greater ease. A representative for Attorney General Pam Bondi described the case as a broader fight "to rein in unlawful judicial overreach." Attorney General Pam Bondi made the statement on Wednesday via X.

In a scathing criticism, Democrat Governor Wes Moore of Maryland said the Department of Justice's case goes too far. "The White House is suing judges themselves after blatantly violating judicial orders and directing personal attacks on individual judges," citing a contradiction of the Constitution. "This unprecedented action clearly aims to coerce judges and undermine their authority."

Opinions were divided among legal experts. Supposedly, University of Richmond professor Carl Tobias branded the litigation "mind-boggling" and accused the administration of using theatrics. He did, however, concede that the Department of Justice's legal approach is sound and that the Trump administration is, in fact, trying to "claw back" powers it thinks the courts have wrongfully taken.

To join the Diamond and Silk Monthly Supporter Program, visit http://SupportDiamondandSilk.com.
Lindell TV, VOCL, ChatDit, Rumble, TruthSocial, and Diamond and Silk Media are all excellent ways to stay connected with Diamond and Silk.