U.S. District Judge Thomas Cullen, who was nominated by President Donald Trump, also criticized the administration’s attacks on the judiciary, saying 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.”

Unfavorable rulings for Trump

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.

Trump has railed against unfavorable judicial rulings and in one case called for the impeachment of a federal judge in Washington who ordered planeloads of deported immigrants to be turned around. In July, the Justice Department filed a misconduct complaint against that judge.

The White House had no immediate comment Tuesday on Cullen’s decision.

The Maryland judges, represented by prominent conservative lawyer Paul Clement, argued the administration’s lawsuit sought to limit the power of the judiciary to review certain immigration proceedings while it pursued a mass deportation agenda.

Cullen, who was nominated to the federal bench by Trump in 2020, serves in the Western District of Virginia but was tapped to oversee the case because all 15 of Maryland’s federal judges were named as defendants along with the court clerk and the court itself, a highly unusual circumstance he noted in his ruling.

“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,” he wrote.

Cullen found the administration lacked the legal authority to bring the suit, but he said even if it could, the judges were immune. Instead of the “more confrontational” approach of a lawsuit, the administration should have appealed the chief judge’s order, he wrote, calling that the “tried-and-true recourse available to all federal litigants.”

“One branch’s alleged infringement on another’s exclusive power does not license a constitutional free-for-all,” he wrote.

What the Maryland judge’s order said

Signed by Chief Maryland District Judge George L. Russell III, the order at issue in this case prevents the Trump administration from immediately deporting any immigrants seeking review of their detention in Maryland district court. It blocks their removal until 4 p.m. on the second business day after the filing of their habeas corpus petitions, which allow people to challenge their detention by the government.

The order says it aims to maintain existing conditions and the potential jurisdiction of the court, ensure immigrant petitioners are able to participate in court proceedings and access attorneys and give the government “fulsome opportunity to brief and present arguments in its defense.”

In an amended order pausing deportations, Russell said the court had received an influx of habeas petitions after hours that “resulted in hurried and frustrating hearings in that obtaining clear and concrete information about the location and status of the petitioners is elusive.”

Attorneys for the Trump administration accused the Maryland judges of prioritizing a regular schedule, writing in court documents that “a sense of frustration and a desire for greater convenience do not give Defendants license to flout the law.”

Among the judges named in the lawsuit was Paula Xinis, who found the Trump administration in March illegally deported Kilmar Abrego Garcia to El Salvador — a case that quickly became a flashpoint in Trump’s immigration crackdown.

Clement, who served as solicitor general under Republican President George W. Bush, denounced the suit during a hearing earlier this month.

“The executive branch seeks to bring suit in the name of the United States against a co-equal branch of government,” he said. “There really is no precursor for this suit.”