A Maryland court, along with its federal judges, has expressed their exasperation with what they describe as an extravagant lawsuit from the Trump administration. These judges have requested that a judge appointed by President Trump dismiss this unprecedented case entirely, to prevent the government from trying a similar approach in the future, potentially targeting an appellate court next.

In an effort to advance its comprehensive immigration and deportation policies, the Trump administration filed a lawsuit against the entire U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland and its judges this past June. The administration argued that the court’s “standing orders,” which issued two-day administrative holds on deportation efforts when habeas corpus petitions were filed, demonstrated “judicial overreach,” allegedly hindering President Trump’s “executive authority” and the mandate he received in the 2024 election.

Back in late May, Chief Judge George Russell III pointed out that the spike in habeas petitions, a result of the Trump administration’s own actions under the Alien Enemies Act during unconventional hours such as weekends and holidays, necessitated these two-day holds. This measure was deemed a practical approach to handle the court’s caseload while adhering to due process under U.S. Supreme Court guidelines.

Now, the judges have requested U.S. District Judge Thomas T. Cullen, assigned by designation in this case since July following the administration’s effort to have the entire court recuse itself, to “dismiss this unprecedented and uniquely disruptive lawsuit” in full.

The defendants, represented by conservative lawyer Paul Clement, have described the lawsuit as not only novel but also fundamentally flawed. They argue it is non-justiciable, that the plaintiffs lack a valid claim, and that the defendants are protected by immunity. Furthermore, even if the Executive branch overcame these significant barriers, the lawsuit would still not succeed based on the actual legal arguments, according to the defendants.

The reply emphasized that the court needs to be able to manage its calendar to “ensure that it can do its job” and that “temporary relief” preserving the “status quo” is a “modest” and “entirely lawful” exercise of its “inherent authority” which should not and cannot be encroached upon by the executive.

“The exercise of that inherent authority here—a modest, two-business-day hold to allow the court to open a case and assess its jurisdiction—is eminently reasonable, entirely lawful, and far less of an imposition on the Executive than comparable appellate-court stays,” the filing continued. “In short, there is no basis for the extraordinary remedy the Executive seeks, and there is every reason to deny it.”

The defendants then wondered if the DOJ would back another lawsuit attempting to sue an entire federal appellate court, not taking the administration’s “Trust us” approach at face value and citing the late U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia along the way.

“The Executive denies any present intention to file such a suit, but nothing in its theory limits it to suing district courts, and ‘Trust us’ is not a comforting response when it comes to broad assertions of executive power. See Morrison v. Olson, 487 U.S. 654, 727 (1988) (Scalia, J., dissenting),” the reply went on, with a warning. “If this suit is allowed to be the first of its kind, it will not be the last.”

For good measure, the judges called it “rather rich” that the administration has sued, claiming the executive’s “immediate need” to carry out deportations trumps the coequal judicial branch’s role in responding to that alleged “urgency.”

“And the entire premise of this suit is that the Executive has an ‘immediate need’ to remove certain aliens, which makes it rather rich for the Executive to insist that courts must undergo a full-blown notice-and-comment proceeding before they can take even modest steps to respond to that professed urgency in kind,” the filing said.

The Trump administration’s most recent filing, from Aug. 1, stated the judges’ immunity arguments were “unsupported by precedent,” and that the government is “likely to succeed on the merits” in arguing that the two-day stay standing orders are unjustifiable, “procedurally invalid” affronts to the executive’s authority over “immigration matters.”

“The Court should enter a preliminary injunction prohibiting the Defendants as well as their successors, agents, and employees from implementing or effectuating the Standing Order and Amended Standing Order going forward,” the DOJ said. “And the Court should deny Defendants’ motion to dismiss.”

In late July, the judges said the DOJ was treating the court like a Denny’s diner, ordering up anything and everything at any hour of the day or night and expecting rapid satisfaction.

“[J]udges need some modicum of time and adverse presentation to properly assess their jurisdiction and make an informed decision, while also giving aliens a reasonable opportunity to request emergency relief,” the filing said.

The defendants, as in the latest reply, stated that the administration’s lawsuit is “fundamentally incompatible with the separation of powers” — a case that is “neither justiciable nor meritorious” but nonetheless promotes gamesmanship to force the recusals of the entire court and put the matter before a judge from another jurisdiction.