A Trump-appointed judge has dismissed a lawsuit filed by the Department of Justice (DOJ) against the federal judges of Maryland, calling the move unconstitutional and dangerous. Judge Thomas T. Cullen, appointed during Donald Trump’s presidency, ruled that the executive branch cannot sue judges over their official decisions. Instead, the government must rely on the appeals process if it disagrees with court orders.
This ruling is being viewed as a major defense of judicial independence at a time when tensions between the executive branch and the courts are rising.
In June 2025, the DOJ took the extraordinary step of suing all 15 federal district judges in Maryland. The target of the lawsuit was a standing order that temporarily paused deportations for two business days whenever detainees filed habeas corpus petitions. The rule ensured that the court had enough time to review emergency filings before someone could be deported.
The DOJ argued that this order interfered with presidential powers over immigration and created an unlawful barrier to deportations. Instead of appealing specific cases, the department chose to sue the entire Maryland federal bench. Legal experts described this as unprecedented and alarming, saying it undermined the separation of powers by making judges personally responsible for their rulings.
Judge Cullen issued a 39-page opinion dismissing the case. His decision rested on several key points:
Cullen emphasized that judges are protected by judicial immunity for decisions they make in their official roles. Suing judges personally for issuing court orders is not legally valid. He also pointed out that the court itself is shielded by sovereign immunity, meaning it cannot be directly sued by the government.
The judge found that the DOJ had no legal grounds to bring the lawsuit. The executive branch cannot directly challenge judicial actions in this way. Instead, the proper channel would have been to appeal the standing order through the U.S. Court of Appeals.
Cullen explained that allowing this case to proceed would contradict centuries of constitutional tradition. The U.S. system is based on checks and balances, and the branches of government are expected to respect each other’s roles. For the executive to sue judges directly would set a dangerous precedent.
If the DOJ believed the Maryland order was unlawful, the correct path was to file an appeal in the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. Suing the judges personally, Cullen said, was both improper and a threat to judicial independence.
Beyond the legal arguments, Cullen criticized the repeated attacks from political leaders against judges. He said describing judges as corrupt, radical, or rogue undermines public trust in the judiciary. His opinion stressed that disagreements with rulings should be resolved through legal channels, not public smear campaigns or lawsuits against judges themselves.
The lawsuit and Cullen’s dismissal cannot be viewed in isolation. During Trump’s time in office, and continuing into his current administration, the relationship between the executive branch and the judiciary has been tense.
Federal courts have blocked or delayed several immigration measures, including efforts to fast-track deportations. In response, the administration has often criticized judges publicly, questioning their motives and legitimacy.
The Maryland standing order was part of this broader conflict. While the DOJ saw it as an obstacle to enforcement, the courts viewed it as necessary to protect due process rights. The lawsuit represented the most aggressive move yet, directly targeting judges instead of appealing their decisions.
Cullen’s ruling makes it clear that the executive branch cannot bypass the appeals system. This protects the judiciary from being turned into a political target. If the DOJ disagrees with a ruling, it must challenge it through established legal channels.
The decision strengthens the balance of power between the branches of government. By dismissing the case, Cullen reaffirmed that the judiciary cannot be intimidated or undermined by executive lawsuits. This reinforces the idea that courts are co-equal branches of government, not agencies subject to presidential control.
The ruling is also a political setback for the DOJ and the Trump administration. The lawsuit was seen as an attempt to exert control over judges who had issued rulings that slowed deportations. Instead, the executive branch has now been told it overstepped its authority.
By defending judicial independence, Cullen’s ruling may help restore public trust in the courts. In a climate where judges are often criticized in harsh political terms, this decision highlights the importance of maintaining respect for judicial authority.
The DOJ has already indicated it plans to appeal Cullen’s dismissal to the Fourth Circuit. This means the case may not be over. However, legal experts say it is unlikely that higher courts will revive such an unusual lawsuit.
Instead, the appeals process may serve as a reminder that there are proper channels for resolving disputes between the branches of government. Whether the administration adjusts its approach remains to be seen.
This case highlights the importance of judicial independence in the American system. The courts exist to check executive power, even when decisions are politically unpopular. If the executive branch could sue judges over their rulings, it would weaken that independence and threaten the balance of powers.
Cullen’s ruling sends a strong message that judges cannot be targeted for doing their jobs. It also serves as a warning against politicizing the judiciary. At a time of deep political division, the decision reinforces the idea that constitutional norms must be respected to preserve democracy.
The decision that a Trump-appointed judge throws out DOJ lawsuit against Maryland judges is more than just a legal ruling. It is a defense of constitutional order and a reminder of the limits of executive power.
By dismissing the case, Judge Cullen upheld the principle that disputes over court rulings must be resolved through the legal process, not through personal attacks or unprecedented lawsuits.
As the DOJ pursues an appeal, the case will continue to test the boundaries between the executive branch and the judiciary. For now, the ruling stands as a significant moment in the ongoing struggle to preserve judicial independence in the face of political pressure.
Do Follow USA Glory On Instagram
Read Next – Trump threatens Chicago troops, Gov. Pritzker responds
The esports mainstream trend is growing faster than anyone expected. From small gaming communities to…
Urban Outfitters tariffs impact is becoming a major concern in the retail industry. Known for…
Legal marijuana states economic impact is a growing topic of interest. As more states legalize…
Meituan profit tumbles as China’s leading food-delivery giant struggles with a brutal price war that…
The future of international students in the U.S. is a topic of great importance today.…
AI Tutors Impact on Student Learning: Benefits and Challenges Artificial Intelligence (AI) is rapidly changing…