(Baltimore) An American federal judge rejected the Trump administration on Tuesday on Tuesday the entire Maryland Federal Magistracy concerning an order of the chief judge suspending the immediate expulsion of migrants contesting their dismissal.
US District Judge Thomas Cullen accessed the judges to reject the case. He said that they would be differently “would go against an overwhelming case law, would deviate from a long -standing constitutional tradition and would undermine the rule of law”.
The White House did not comment immediately.
Judge Cullen was appointed federal judge by President Donald Trump in 2020. He signed in the western district of Virginia, but he was chosen to supervise the case, because the 15 federal judges of Maryland are all accused, a very unusual circumstance which reflects the severity of the republican administration towards judges who slow down or interrupt his policies.
Thomas Cullen expressed his skepticism about this legal action during a hearing in August. He wondered about the need for the Trump administration to continue all the judges to challenge the order.
The ordinance prevents the Trump administration from immediately expelling any immigrant requesting the re -examination of his detention before the district court of Maryland. It blocks their expulsion until 4 p.m. on the second working day following the filing of their request in Habeas Corpus.
The order aims to maintain the existing conditions and the potential jurisdiction of the court, to ensure that the immigrant applicants can participate in legal proceedings and have access to lawyers, and to give the government “fully the opportunity to present its arguments and its conclusions”.
The Department of Justice, which filed the complaint in June, affirms that this automatic suspension violates a decision of the Supreme Court and obstructs the authority of the President to enforce immigration laws. The department is increasingly exasperated by decisions blocking the Donald Trump program and has repeatedly accused the federal judges of abusively hindering his powers.
This legal action was an extraordinary legal maneuver, which intensified the conflict between the executive power and the federal judicial power.
The lawyers for the judges of Maryland argued that the complaint was to limit the power of the judiciary to examine certain immigration procedures, while the Trump administration is continuing its massive expulsion program.
“The executive power seeks to bring legal action on behalf of the United States against an equivalent power of the government,” pointed lawyer Paul Clement, during the hearing. There is really no precedent for this action. »»
Me Clement is an eminent conservative lawyer who was a general request under the republican presidency of George W. Bush. He listed several other ways that the administration could have taken to challenge the order, such as the filing of an individual appeal in Habeas Corpus. Requests in Habeas Corpus allow people to challenge their detention by the government.
The lawyer for the Department of Justice, Elizabeth Themins Hedges, said that the government simply sought to remove a legal obstacle preventing an effective application of immigration laws.
“The United States is complainant here because it is prejudice to,” she said.
Among the judges quoted in the complaint is Paula Xinis, who concluded in March that the Trump administration illegally expelled Kilmar Abrego Garcia to Salvador – a case which quickly became a point of friction in Mr. Trump’s migratory repression. Abrego Garcia was detained in a sadly famous Salvadorian megaprison, where he claims to have been beaten and tortured.
Donald Trump denounced unfavorable judicial decisions and, in one case, asked for the dismissal of a Washington Federal Judge who had ordered the repression of aircraft filled with expelled immigrants. In July, the Department of Justice filed a complaint for badly conduct against the judge.
