WASHINGTON — The U.S. Department of Justice filed a complaint Wednesday against the U.S. District Court of Maryland over a standing order that mandates automatic injunctions in federal immigration enforcement cases, alleging the court overstepped its legal authority.
The Justice Department argues that the Maryland court’s order bypasses legal standards by automatically halting deportation or immigration enforcement actions for any noncitizen detainee who files a habeas corpus petition. According to the DOJ, the policy violates procedural rules for granting injunctions and contradicts both congressional intent and U.S. Supreme Court precedent.
“The American people elected President Trump to carry out his policy agenda: this pattern of judicial overreach undermines the democratic process and cannot be allowed to stand,” said Attorney General Pamela Bondi.
The complaint marks a rare legal challenge by the Executive Branch against a federal court, and reflects escalating tensions over immigration enforcement and judicial authority. DOJ officials argue that the court’s automatic injunctions prevent federal immigration authorities from carrying out their responsibilities.
The order in question allows the clerk of the court—not a judge—to issue immediate temporary protections from deportation without requiring hearings or individual judicial determinations. The DOJ maintains this violates the standards set forth under federal civil procedure.
DOJ targets pattern of judicial interference in immigration policy
Since the beginning of the Trump administration, DOJ officials say district courts have issued more nationwide injunctions in the first 100 days than were issued in the entire 20th century. The Department describes the Maryland court’s standing order as “another egregious example” of judicial overreach that interferes with the federal government’s ability to enforce immigration laws.
The Justice Department continues to pursue legal actions against what it describes as systemic misuse of Article III judicial authority, particularly when used to obstruct federal immigration policy.
The legal dispute centers on the constitutional balance between the judiciary and executive authority in managing immigration enforcement.
