Court tosses lawsuit by Trump against Maryland federal judges, calling it ‘potentially calamitous’

BALTIMORE (AP) — A federal judge on Tuesday threw out the Trump administration’s lawsuit against Maryland’s entire federal bench in an emphatic ruling that underscored the extraordinary nature of the suit, slamming it as “potentially calamitous.”

U.S. District Judge Thomas Cullen, who was nominated by President Donald Trump, also criticized the administration’s attacks on the judiciary, highlighting in a footnote that White House officials in recent months had described judges as “rogue,” “unhinged” and “crooked,” among other epithets.

“Although some tension between the coordinate branches of government is a hallmark of our constitutional system, this concerted effort by the Executive to smear and impugn individual judges who rule against it is both unprecedented and unfortunate,” he wrote.

At issue in the lawsuit was an order by the chief judge of the Maryland district court that stopped the immediate deportation of migrants challenging their removals. The Justice Department said the automatic pause impeded the president’s authority to enforce immigration laws, and it sought a court order blocking it.

Cullen said allowing the suit to continue “would run counter to overwhelming precedent, depart from longstanding constitutional tradition, and offend the rule of law.”

“In their wisdom, the Constitution’s framers joined three coordinate branches to establish a single sovereign,” Cullen wrote. “That structure may occasionally engender clashes between two branches and encroachment by one branch on another’s authority. But mediating those disputes must occur in a manner that respects the Judiciary’s constitutional role.”

The lawsuit, which the Justice Department filed in June, was a remarkable legal maneuver, ratcheting up the Trump administration’s fight with the federal judiciary. The department has grown increasingly frustrated by rulings blocking Trump’s agenda, repeatedly accusing federal judges of improperly impeding his powers.

“The Maryland court’s order upholds a direct assault on the President’s ability to enforce the immigration laws,”...

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mdd.584990/gov.uscourts.mdd.584990.58.0_4.pdf

Starting at the bottom of page 3...

In casting its wide net, the Executive ensnared an entire judicial body—a vital part of this coordinate branch of government—and its principal officers in novel and potentially calamitous litigation.³
Footnote ³ The mere filing of this suit required the recusal of the entire federal bench in the District of Maryland and the assignment of this out-of-district judge who, by this designation, is theoretically empowered to enjoin his fellow district judges and, by extension, hold them in contempt for violating the court’s orders. If the case were to survive a motion to dismiss, the parties—the individual judicial defendants and principal officers of the Executive, including the Secretary of Homeland Security and the United States Attorney General—would potentially be required to sit for depositions and produce documents, including emails and other internal communications, relevant to the issuance of the standing orders and the actual reasons for filing suit. These discovery demands, in turn, would almost certainly trigger claims of privilege—executive, judicial, deliberative-process, and the like—and invariably compound this constitutional standoff into epic proportions.

Later...page 4...

All of this isn’t to say that the Executive is without any recourse; far from it. If the Executive truly believes that Defendants’ standing orders violate the law, it should avail itself of the tried-and-true recourse available to all federal litigants: It should appeal.⁴ Footnote ⁴Or pursue other alternatives permitted by the Constitution or Congress.

So many options.

I guess you could call this...the rest of the story.

It has become more than obvious that the People In Black Robes are not only Above The Law but have become all 3 branches of government roll up into one.

The administration lawsuit was an absurdity. They had the right to appeal to the Circuit Court, not to file suit against the judges who have absolute immunity.

Opinion of the Court by U.S. District Judge Thomas Cullen

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_T._Cullen

On December 18, 2019, President Donald Trump announced his intent to nominate Cullen to serve as a United States district judge of the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia. On February 4, 2020, his nomination was sent to the Senate. President Trump nominated Cullen to the seat vacated by Judge Glen E. Conrad, who assumed senior status on December 11, 2017. On March 4, 2020, a hearing on his nomination was held before the Senate Judiciary Committee. On May 14, 2020, his nomination was reported out of committee by a 17–5 vote. On September 9, 2020, the United States Senate invoked cloture on his nomination by a 77–18 vote. On September 10, 2020, his nomination was confirmed by a 79–19 vote. He received his judicial commission on September 15, 2020.

Opinion of the Court at 4:

Pending before the court is Defendants’ motion to dismiss the Executive’s lawsuit. Defendants argue that this action must be dismissed because it presents a nonjusticiable dispute between two co-equal branches of government. Specifically, they assert that, because the standing orders are quintessential judicial acts, the named judges are absolutely immune from this—or any other—suit. Defendants also argue that, despite the potential merits of the Executive’s argument that Defendants exceeded their power in issuing the standing orders, there is no right—express or implied—to litigate that grievance in this manner.
As explained in detail below, this court agrees—nearly across the board. Any fair reading of the legal authorities cited by Defendants leads to the ineluctable conclusion that this court has no alternative but to dismiss. To hold otherwise would run counter to overwhelming precedent, depart from longstanding constitutional tradition, and offend the rule of law.

Opinion of the Court at 15:

B. Immunity
Apart from their justiciability concerns, Defendants argue that this suit can go no further because “[t]he district court itself possesses sovereign immunity, and the judges and clerk of court have immunity for their official acts.” (Mem. Supp. Mot. Dismiss at 25.) The court agrees.

Opinion of the Court at 26:

Defendants also move to dismiss the Executive’s lawsuit because it does not identify a cause of action that allows it in the first place. The court again agrees. Dismissal of the Executive’s suit is appropriate because it has not pointed to a cause of action that permits this court to entertain a lawsuit between two coordinate branches of government, and this court will not be the first to create one.

“...criticized the administration’s attacks on the judiciary, highlighting in a footnote that White House officials in recent months had described judges as “rogue,” “unhinged” and “crooked,” among other epithets.”

If rulings are constantly being overturned on appeal, maybe they are rogue, unhinged, and crooked.
____________________________________________________________

The appellate courts, federal and state, serve as a check on trial courts at every level. The Supreme Courts of the US and the states serve as a check on federal and state courts.

That’s how the legal system was designed in the Constitution.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.