Justice Department Sues Entire Maryland Federal Judiciary Over Immigration Standing Order

In an extraordinary and highly unusual legal maneuver, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) has filed a civil lawsuit against every federal judge in the state of Maryland. The lawsuit challenges a standing court order that bars the federal government from deporting undocumented immigrants for at least 24 hours after they file a legal challenge to their detention.

The sweeping action, lodged on Tuesday, escalates tensions between the executive and judicial branches over the administration’s immigration policies and the judiciary’s oversight authority.

“This lawsuit involves yet another regrettable example of the unlawful use of equitable powers to restrain the Executive,” the DOJ asserted in the court filing.

At the heart of the lawsuit is a procedural order issued last month by the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland. The order instructs court clerks to automatically enter an injunction preventing the deportation or status change of any non-citizen detainee who files a habeas corpus petition—a move designed to give the court time to assess claims before removal occurs.

The DOJ contends this order amounts to a blanket judicial injunction, issued outside the scope of individual cases, which violates the constitutional limits on judicial power.

“Defendants have instituted an avowedly automatic injunction against the federal government… by promulgating a standing order and amended standing order,” the suit states.

Background: Immigration Tensions and a High-Profile Case

The Maryland district court has emerged as a flashpoint in recent immigration litigation. In particular, it was the venue for one of the most high-profile cases involving Kilmar Abrego Garcia, an undocumented immigrant who was deported to El Salvador in error despite having legal proceedings pending in the U.S.

Garcia has since been returned to the U.S. and now faces federal trafficking charges. His case has raised questions about the federal government’s compliance with judicial orders and prompted ongoing deliberations by Judge Paula Xinis over whether to sanction DOJ officials for obstructing Garcia’s lawful release.

Judge Xinis, who issued the standing order in question, is now named as one of 17 defendants in the DOJ’s lawsuit—alongside every sitting federal judge in the Maryland district.

A Legal Quagmire: Who Can Hear the Case?

Because all Maryland federal judges are named as defendants, none can legally preside over the lawsuit, creating a jurisdictional quandary.

To address the impasse, the DOJ filed a motion on Wednesday requesting that all Maryland judges recuse themselves and that the case be either:

• Assigned by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals to a judge from another district, or

• Transferred to another federal district entirely.

This type of mass judicial disqualification is extremely rare and underscores the unprecedented nature of the DOJ’s legal offensive.

Political and Legal Implications

The lawsuit marks a dramatic escalation in the battle between the Trump administration’s immigration crackdown and the judiciary’s efforts to uphold due process for undocumented immigrants.

Legal analysts suggest the Justice Department is testing the limits of executive authority versus judicial oversight—a tension made more complex by a wave of emergency immigration lawsuits that have swept federal courts in recent years.

The standing order under scrutiny was widely seen by legal advocates as a safeguard against rapid deportations that preempt due legal process, especially in light of aggressive removal strategies undertaken by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).

Civil rights advocates have warned that overturning the order could result in vulnerable individuals being removed from the country before courts can fully review their legal claims.

What Happens Next?

As of now, the case remains in legal limbo pending a decision on venue reassignment. If the motion is granted, the lawsuit could shift to another district or be overseen by a specially assigned judge from outside Maryland.

Observers say the case could set a powerful precedent on the limits of judicial intervention in federal immigration enforcement and may ultimately require Supreme Court review.

Regardless of the outcome, the Justice Department’s move to sue an entire judiciary signals the deepening rift between federal agencies and the courts—and highlights the growing volatility surrounding U.S. immigration policy in the lead-up to the 2026 election cycle.

Also Read:

• Kilmar Garcia case: From wrongful deportation to federal indictment

• What is a standing order? Why this legal tool is now under fire

• DOJ vs Judiciary: A brewing constitutional showdown