39
The clash between the White House and the judiciary in the United States has once again played out in court. This time, the Trump administration lost its push to overturn a deportation amnesty policy after a federal judge dismissed the government’s lawsuit. The ruling is seen as another reminder of the tension between the Executive and Judicial arms of government in America.
The case centred on a policy from the U.S. District Court in Maryland that gives a two-day automatic stay of deportation to any migrant who files a habeas petition. A habeas petition is a legal step that allows someone in detention to challenge their arrest or the order for their removal. The two-day rule is meant to give the courts time to consider whether deportation should go ahead or not.
Officials under former President Donald Trump argued that the Maryland rule gave migrants an unfair advantage by automatically halting deportation before the government even had the chance to defend its position. According to the Trump team, this policy went beyond the powers of the judges and effectively granted “blanket amnesty” to people facing removal.
But the case took an unexpected turn. Judge Thomas Cullen, who was appointed by Trump himself to the bench in Virginia, was selected to hear the case after all Maryland judges recused themselves. In his ruling, he dismissed the lawsuit, saying that the administration had wrongly targeted every judge in Maryland in its filing. He noted that this sweeping approach was a mistake and made the case legally defective.
Judge Cullen went further to criticise the Justice Department, saying the administration’s style of confrontation with judges across the country had weakened its arguments. He pointed to repeated attacks by Trump officials on federal judges, describing them as “left-wing,” “activist,” “unhinged,” and other harsh terms. He said while tension between government branches is normal in a democracy, the Executive’s attempt to smear judges was “unprecedented and unfortunate.”
He stressed that if the government disagrees with court policies, it has proper legal channels, such as filing appeals in individual cases, instead of suing an entire bench of judges.
The background to this dispute shows how much immigration enforcement became a flashpoint during Trump’s presidency. Federal judges in different states frequently stepped in to block deportations or slow down removals, accusing the government of rushing cases or moving migrants away from court jurisdictions to prevent oversight. In Maryland, Chief Judge George Russell III, who was appointed by former President Barack Obama, introduced the two-day stay policy as a safeguard. He explained that the rule prevents deportations from happening too quickly and allows the court to examine the details properly.
The Trump administration, frustrated by what it saw as judicial interference, decided to take the unusual step of suing the Maryland court itself. But this action backfired. Judge Cullen said allowing the case to continue could have created a “constitutional standoff of epic proportions,” possibly forcing judges and top government officials, including the attorney general, to give depositions and even release confidential communications. He stressed that it is not normal for one branch of government to sue another over the exercise of judicial powers.
Justice Department lawyers, however, maintained that Maryland’s policy was open to abuse. They pointed to a case where a migrant who was not even present in Maryland at the time still filed a petition and automatically received protection from deportation.
Judge Cullen, in his judgment, said Maryland’s system is not unusual when compared with some appeals courts that have even stronger rules. He described Maryland’s two-day stay as “more modest” than what is practiced elsewhere. He concluded that while the Executive may have grievances, it must raise them in the proper way without undermining the judicial system.
The dismissal means the Trump administration’s fight against the two-day amnesty policy has ended in this round, though the government could still attempt to challenge deportations one by one through the appeals process. The case has also highlighted how deportation, immigration enforcement, and judicial oversight remain some of the most politically charged issues in America’s governance.
