DOJ Lawsuit Against Maryland Judges Reaches Fourth Circuit

The Justice Department’s lawsuit against Maryland judges reached the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit on Oct. 30, as a three-judge panel heard the government’s appeal of a 2025 ruling that threw the case out. The suit targets a Maryland court order that briefly blocks the deportation of immigration detainees who file habeas corpus petitions there, and the argument turned less on that two-day pause than on whether the executive branch can sue an entire federal court at all.

No ruling came from the bench. For detainees in Maryland, nothing changes in the meantime.

The order behind the lawsuit against Maryland judges

Under the current version, Second Amended Standing Order 2025-01, signed by Chief Judge George L. Russell III on Dec. 1, 2025, a detainee held in Maryland who files a habeas petition can ask for an automatic stay. The petitioner must certify that he or she is detained in Maryland, that emergency relief is necessary and that the court has jurisdiction. Once the clerk notifies federal prosecutors, the government may not remove the person from the continental United States until 4 p.m. on the second business day after that notice.

The assigned judge can lengthen or shorten that window, or dissolve the stay if the government shows good cause. The order does not decide whether anyone is released or allowed to stay.

The United States and the Department of Homeland Security sued over the first version, issued in May 2025, naming the court, its clerk and its judges in a June 24, 2025, complaint that called the order “lawless,” CBS News and the Associated Press reported. U.S. District Judge Thomas Cullen of the Western District of Virginia, a Trump appointee assigned to hear the case, dismissed it on Aug. 26, 2025, finding that judicial immunity barred the claims and that the executive branch had no right to bring this kind of suit.

After Russell reissued the order with the certification and good-cause provisions, the Justice Department argued in January 2026 that the appeal was moot and asked the Fourth Circuit to wipe Cullen’s opinion off the books. The court refused on Feb. 10, the Maryland Daily Record reported.

“What’s to stop the executive from suing the 4th Circuit?”

According to an account of the hearing by Law&Crime, the case went to Judges Stephanie Thacker, A. Marvin Quattlebaum and DeAndrea Gist Benjamin, and the first two pressed the government on where its theory ends. Justice Department lawyer Sarah Welch relied on In re Debs, the 1895 Supreme Court decision allowing the United States to seek equitable relief in its own courts, and said such actions “have been brought since the earliest days of the Republic.” She again asked the court to declare the case moot and vacate Cullen’s ruling.

Thacker told Welch, “I don’t see a limiting principle to your position,” noting that “this is against an entire court” and that the Fourth Circuit has a standing order similar to Maryland’s. Quattlebaum asked whether the Debs line reaches beyond the government’s property and similar interests. Paul Clement, the former U.S. solicitor general representing the judges, argued that “if something has never been tried before, that is kind of prima facie evidence that the power doesn’t exist,” and warned that vacating Cullen’s opinion on mootness grounds would “create very perverse incentives.”

That last point is the practical crux. If the panel affirms, Cullen’s reasoning becomes binding precedent across the Fourth Circuit’s five states, and a future administration of either party would have a hard time suing a court there over its internal procedures. If it dismisses the appeal as moot and grants vacatur, the government loses nothing beyond this case and the legal question stays open for the next fight. A ruling for the government on the merits would go furthest, letting the executive attack a court’s case-management order in a standalone lawsuit rather than through appeals in individual cases.

Why a two-day pause draws this much fire

The administration’s objection, as the Daily Record reported it, is about time: a government filing argued the order “rob[bed] the Executive Branch of its most scarce resource: time to put its policies into effect.” The order’s defenders point to the opposite risk: a person flown out of the country before a judge reads the petition. Judges elsewhere have recently confronted removals and re-arrests that outpaced their orders, including the Ahmed Soliman deportation case, a civil contempt finding in Pennsylvania and ICE re-arrests after habeas release in Minnesota.

The pause is also shorter than what appellate courts routinely grant themselves. Courthouse News reported in 2025 that the Fourth Circuit’s own procedure freezes removal efforts for 14 days, a point Thacker’s question from the bench put back in play. Whichever way the panel rules, the losing side can seek rehearing by the full Fourth Circuit or ask the Supreme Court to step in. The same court heard Virginia’s ICE mask ban appeal earlier this week.

This article is for general information and is not legal advice.

Sources

Vasanth Vaidyanathan, Esq.

Administrator

Vasanth Vaidyanathan is an immigration attorney with over 20 years of experience focused exclusively on U.S. immigration and nationality law. He holds an LL.M. from California Western School of Law, San Diego and advises individuals and businesses on employment and family-based immigration matters, including H-1B, PERM, EB categories, and adjustment of status. He has also been a featured speaker at immigration seminars across the U.S. To reach Vasanth visit: https://www.vnathan.com/

Author's website Author's posts