By Scott Merrill
In a week marked by extraordinary legal clashes, the Trump administration launched an unprecedented lawsuit against 15 federal judges in Maryland on June 24, while the US Supreme Court handed the administration a partial victory in its effort to end birthright citizenship three days later.
Together, the developments represent a dramatic escalation in the Executive Branch’s campaign to reshape immigration policy and a challenge to the constitutional role of the judiciary.
DOJ Sues Maryland Judges Over Habeas Order
The Department of Justice (DOJ) filed suit against all active and senior-status judges in the US District Court for the District of Maryland, along with the court’s clerk, aiming to overturn a standing order from Chief Judge George L. Russell, III. Issued on May 28, the order delays deportations for two business days when a noncitizen files a habeas corpus petition. The court described the measure as a procedural safeguard to ensure due process, while the DOJ called it an unlawful interference with executive authority.
Legal experts say it is the first time a presidential administration has sued an entire panel of sitting federal judges over a case management order.
Daniel Pi, a professor at the University of New Hampshire Franklin Pierce School of Law, called the lawsuit “a knee-jerk response.”
“Judges sometimes make errors – that’s why we have appeals courts,” Pi says. “But suing all the judges in a district? That’s the kind of thing you sometimes see from incompetent lawyers – it’s not a serious legal strategy.”
Still, Pi says he doesn’t believe Trump administration lawyers are incompetent.
“This kind of lawsuit isn’t about the law – it’s about sending a message,” he says. “The audacity of suing not just one judge, but every single judge in a federal district, is meant to stoke fear.”
Pi adds, “Trump is essentially arguing that the judiciary should not be an independent branch of government. That’s a fundamental assault on the separation of powers.”
Andrew Warren, senior counsel at the State Democracy Defenders Fund and a former Florida prosecutor who was suspended by Governor Ron DeSantis for defending abortion rights, agrees.
“This isn’t just a challenge to a policy,” Warren says. “It’s a full-frontal assault on judicial authority. The idea that judges can’t block unconstitutional actions defies the foundational principle of judicial review laid out in Marbury v. Madison.”
Warren also warns that this lawsuit fits a broader pattern.
“We’ve seen the Trump administration flirt with constitutional crisis before,” he says. “What’s different is that some of the rhetoric suggests judges are un-American or corrupt, and now [he’s] taking them to court for doing their jobs.”
He adds: “When you target the judiciary like this, you chip away at one of the few institutions that can protect the rights of individuals against government overreach. This lawsuit takes things one step further. [It says] ‘You don’t have authority to block us from deporting people.’ It’s not just challenging a ruling; it’s a personal attack against judges.”
Immigration attorney Enrique Mesa echoes Warren’s concern.
“Why would you sue district court judges? It’s not how things are supposed to be done,” Mesa says. “These are bully tactics. I’ve seen this before, and we lived through it during Trump’s first administration. This isn’t about protecting borders; it’s about fear.”
Mesa points to a recent ethics complaint filed by attorneys and former judges in Florida against US Attorney General Pam Bondi over a controversial memo titled “Ending Illegal DEI and DEIA Discrimination and Preferences.” The Florida Bar dismissed the complaints.
“[In that case] the Florida Bar entertained common sense, but our Attorney General can’t,” Mesa says.
Mesa also expresses frustration with media coverage of immigration enforcement.
“When I’m in immigration court trying to get people out from detention, I’m not seeing Europeans,” he says. “In a docket of 50 people, 20 are from the Dominican Republic, Brazil, and another 10 from Mexico and Guatemala. You can’t tell me race isn’t a big factor.”
SCOTUS Ruling Opens Path to Birthright Citizenship Order
Just days after the Maryland lawsuit, the Supreme Court issued a 6–3 decision in Trump v. Casa, allowing parts of the administration’s executive order eliminating birthright citizenship to take effect in some jurisdictions.
The ruling didn’t address the constitutionality of the executive order. Instead, it limited the use of nationwide injunctions by lower courts, resulting in patchwork legal protections for families across the country.
Mesa calls the ruling procedural but worrisome.
“It’s unfortunate they’re making people go the extra mile to be included in injunctions, but this decision had nothing to do with birthright citizenship,” he says. “I’m optimistic this case will return to the Supreme Court, and they’ll rule in favor of families. The 14th Amendment is clear.”
The 14th Amendment guarantees citizenship to “all persons born or naturalized in the United States.” That principle, affirmed by the 1898 Wong Kim Ark decision, has formed the bedrock of birthright citizenship for more than a century.
Mesa adds that his firm is advising clients closely and urging them to remain calm.
“It’s a daily struggle,” he says. “I tell people to practice patience. I’m hoping the midterms are a wake-up call … This administration was not elected to deport people with families who’ve lived here for years.”
The ruling sparked a swift response. On Friday, the ACLU and advocacy groups filed a nationwide class-action lawsuit. Plaintiffs include families from New Hampshire and groups like the Asian Law Caucus and Legal Defense Fund.
“Every court to have looked at this cruel order agrees it is unconstitutional,” said Cody Wofsy of the ACLU’s Immigrants’ Rights Project in a June statement. “We are fighting to make sure President Trump cannot trample on the citizenship rights of a single child.”
Daniel Pi notes the partisan reactions to the SCOTUS decision.
“Those on the left worry it gives the executive branch too much unchecked power,” he says. “Those on the right celebrate it as a green light for Trump’s immigration agenda. Both are shortsighted. The power will shift again.”
The ruling doesn’t eliminate universal injunctions altogether.
“Now, courts just have to certify a class first,” Pi adds.
Constitutional Crossroads
Legal scholars say the Maryland lawsuit and the SCOTUS ruling expose a broader Trump strategy: redefining executive power by confronting judicial authority.
“It’s not clear who could even hear the case,” Pi says of the Maryland lawsuit. “You’re suing the very judges who would normally review it. That’s not just a nonstarter legally; it’s a sign of contempt for the role of the judiciary.”
He emphasizes that the Constitution rests on an independent judiciary.
“What Trump seems to be signaling is that the courts should defer to him,” he says. “That’s not just unconstitutional – it’s dangerous.”
Warren echoes that concern.
“This lawsuit sends a chilling signal,” he says. “It says the judiciary is no longer safe from political retaliation. That undermines the entire system of checks and balances.”
While experts expect the Maryland lawsuit to be dismissed quickly, they worry about the precedent.
“Even if the courts toss this immediately, the message has already been sent,” Warren says. “That message is: We will punish you for standing in our way.”
He likens the tactic to authoritarian regimes: “I’ve seen this in Turkey, China, and North Korea. I never thought I’d see it in America.”
As litigation moves forward, what’s at stake is more than immigration law. It’s the foundational structure of American democracy.
“This lawsuit wouldn’t be the final blow in a war on the judiciary,” Warren says, “but it’s arguably the first shot of real significance – fired in a court of law.”